Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lindsey County Council (Sandhills) Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Hackney Borough Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill,

Ipswich Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Cowes and Yarmouth) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Address for Return
showing the number of persons dealt with in England and "Wales for Motoring Offences, together with the number of the various offences and the results of proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1930 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 139, of Session 1929–30)."—[Mr. Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CAST HORSES (SALE).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Army horses
that have been cast during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date and sold for human consumption; and to whom they were sold?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): During the year ended 31st May last, 727 Army horses were sold as fit for human consumption. Such animals are destroyed in the presence of a military representative. The purchasers were Messrs. Harrison, Barber and Company, Limited, London, and Messrs. Smith and Spalding, Limited, London.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these horses were slaughtered in London?

Mr. SHAW: Not without notice.

HOSPITAL PATIENTS (UNIFORM).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to enable men in military hospitals, more especially in those which contain ex-soldier patients from the Great War, inmates more or less convalescent, to enjoy the privilege of walking out in civilian costume, in accordance with a practice now common with other ranks in the service?

Mr. SHAW: It is only in exceptional circumstances that the patients in military hospitals are allowed to leave the grounds of the hospital. In most cases a patient who was well enough to "walk out" would be fit to be discharged. I may add that the number of ex-soldier patients from the Great War who are in military hospitals is practically negligible, and I see no sufficient reason for altering the existing rules as regards soldier patients.

Sir C. OMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, because the number of these men is insignificant, they should be placed at a disadvantage in this respect, as compared with other soldiers?

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member is perhaps confusing military hospitals with Ministry of Pension hospitals. As a general rule, a soldier does not go out in civilian clothes. He has no civilian clothes in which to go out.

Sir C. OMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear that a
definite case was brought before me by a very distinguished officer with the request that it might be raised? It is not a hypothetical case.

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member will give me the details of any case, I shall have the matter looked into.

Mr. SIMMONS: Are not commissioned ranks allowed to go out in civilian clothes; and are they not fewer in number than the ordinary ex-service men?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the case that in certain regiments in the Army privates and non-commissioned officers are allowed to go out in civilian clothes; and is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared, in consultation with the Minister of Pensions, to arrange that wounded soldiers should have the same privilege?

Mr. SHAW: I take it that the wounded soldiers referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are mea who are in the Ministry of Pensions hospitals, over which I have no control whatever; but, if any cases are brought to my notice of any alleged hardship or grievance in this connection, I shall consider them. On my present information, I know of no such cases.

BLACK WATCH BAND (CIVILIAN ENGAGEMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the second battalion Black Watch band and pipers are advertised as to be playing at a political fete in Colchester on 20th June next; and whether he has given permission for this?

Mr. SHAW: The engagement was accepted locally owing to a misapprehension as to the nature of the fete, and has now been cancelled.

COAL (OIL FUEL).

Mr. JOHN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the experiments carried out by his Department on the use of fuel oil extracted from coal have now been completed; and whether they have been satisfactory?

Mr. SHAW: No, Sir. The tests have not been completed.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND).

Mr. SINKINSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of mental defectives under 18 years of age in Scotland; how many are educable and uneducable; and how many are in institutions, criminal and otherwise?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The duty imposed upon education authorities in Scotland by the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, to ascertain what children residing within their areas are mentally defective within the meaning of the Act and to make provision for the education of those who are capable of receiving benefit from special instruction extends only to children between five and 16 years of age. According to the last return made by education authorities, the number of children between these ages who were ascertained by them to be mentally defective was 4,910, of whom 3,993 were ascertained to be educable, and 917 uneducable. The number of educable mentally defective children receiving instruction in schools and institutions is 3,938. Between the ages of five and 18 years there are 192 educable and 696 uneducable mental defectives certified under the Act and in residence in certified institutions, and 110 uneducable mental defectives under guardianship in private dwellings. There are no mental defectives under the age of 18 in residence in the State institution.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses that have been built and occupied since 1922 in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow; the number under construction; and when it is estimated that those houses will be ready for occupation?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The number of houses completed and available for occupation at the 30th May in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow was 1,026, and at the same date 330 houses were under construction. It is estimated that all the houses now under construction will be ready for occupation by March, 1932.

RURAL AREAS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement on the intentions of His Majesty's Government to further accelerate the building of cottages and small houses in rural districts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND (COMMITTEE).

Mr. LAWTHER: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines the names of the members of the investigation committee on the question of the future of the Mining Industry Welfare Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I regret that the personnel of the committee is not yet quite complete. My hon. Friend would prefer not to give any of the names until he can give them all.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the list of names will be complete?

Mr. SMITH: We hope to have them shortly.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Next week?

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. SORENSEN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many boys and girls, respectively, have emigrated to New Zealand and to Australia in each of the years 1928, 1929, and 1930; how many have returned; how many have emigrated this year; and whether he has received any representations from the Governments of those Dominions respecting the inadvisability of continuing such emigration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The number of boys between the ages of 12 and 20 who migrated to Australia and New Zealand in 1928 was 5,225, in 1929 3,250, in 1930 1,057, and in 1931 (down to 31st March) 114. The number
of girls was 2,740 in 1928, 1,746 in 1929, 707 in 1930, and 97 in 1931 (down to 31st March). It is not possible to state how many of these boys and girls have returned to this country, but the total numbers of immigrants into the United Kingdom from Australia and New Zealand during the three years in question included the following numbers of boys and girls between the ages of 12 and 20, namely, boys 446, 523 and 625, respectively; girls 360, 371 and 484. The figures of migration for the current year are only available to the 31st March. They include 114 boys and 97 girls. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulties in present economic conditions of encouraging migration to Australia, whilst conditions in New Zealand are also unfavourable to migration at present. At the request therefore of the Governments of those Dominions and with the full concurrence of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the grant of assisted passages is, with a few individual exceptions, suspended for the time being.

Mr. LAWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these boys and girls who emigrated are known to have come back as stowaways or to have worked their passages back?

Mr. THOMAS: That is another question.

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter cannot arise out of this question.

HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to stop the importation, duty free, of Norwegian herring into Britain during the winter herring-fishing season on the East Coast of Scotland and England?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: No, Sir, it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to impose protective duties, particularly on articles of food.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 2,000 crans of herring from Norway are due to be landed to-day and that this will injure most of the Scottish fishermen owing to their decision to postpone the beginning of the Scottish
fisheries in order that the market for cured herring may not be swamped with supplies?

Mr. SMITH: I have nothing to add to my reply.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland about this attack on the summer fishing?

Mr. SMITH: Yes, certainly.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Will the hon. Gentleman bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland, having regard to the danger of controlling the industry and the results to which it may lead?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE RELATIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the attitude of the Government to the proposal of M. Litvinov at the session of the Commission of Inquiry for European Union, on 18th May, at Geneva, that a protocol should be signed with as its object the complete cessation of all forms of economic aggression, both avowed and concealed, confirming the principle proclaimed by the International Economic Conference of 1927 and undertaking not to adopt in their relations with one another any discrimination whatever?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: M. Litvinov's resolution, the text of which was communicated to the hon. Member on 10th June, has yet to be considered by the commission, and I do not think it would be proper for me at this stage to comment on its terms.

Mr. MANDER: Are not the Government in favour of a policy of this kind?

Mr. SMITH: It would be better, when a motion of this kind is tabled, that it should be dealt with first by the commission.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Do the Government propose to make any suggestions to this commission in order to secure greater co-operation?

Mr. SMITH: I think that the policy of the Government on this matter is very fair.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the dissatisfaction with the Government as shown in the supplementary questions?

CARPETS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total annual value of carpets imported into Great Britain from foreign countries up to the latest convenient date?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The declared value of the total imports into the United Kingdom of (a) carpets, carpeting and rugs of wool (including carpets and rugs on a wool or jute basis) and (b) of carpets and rugs of jute, registered as consigned from foreign countries during the year 1930, amounted to (a) £2,933,647 and (b) £230,228, respectively. There were no imports of cork carpet registered as consigned from Foreign countries during this year.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware than in Kidderminster and Bridgnorth a considerable number of persons usually engaged in the carpet industry are unemployed; and what steps do the Government propose to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. SMITH: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. BOYCE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the import duties on British carpets entering France, Germany, and the United States of America?

Mr. SMITH: The duties levied upon British woollen carpets of the kinds exported in substantial amounts from the United Kingdom to the countries mentioned are equivalent in France to from fourpence to a little over eightpence per lb., and in Germany to one shilling per lb. In the United States of America they range from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent. ad valorem. I will have a detailed statement showing the tariff headings and the duties appropriate to each circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BOYCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these duties have practically killed the carpet export trade from this country to the countries mentioned in
the question; and, will the Government take some steps to impose reciprocal duties on carpets coming from those countries into this country?

Mr. HANNON: How long are the Government going to sit down under

STATEMENT showing the Customs Import Duties at present leviable on Carpets of Wool, of United Kingdom origin, on importation into France, Germany and the United States of America.


—
Customs Import Duty according to the Tariff.
Approximate English Equivalent.


I.—France.
Francs.
s.
d.


Carpets of Wool:
Per square metre.
Per square yard.


A. With knotted or twisted pile, including imitations:





Up to 120 rows per metre
80
10
10


From 121 to 300 rows per metre
100
13
6


From 301 to 400 rows per metre
125
16
10


From 401 to 500 rows per metre
190
25
8


500 rows or more per metre
340
45
11



Per kilog.
Per lb.


B. Jacquard woven, with looped or cut pile
8

7


C. Phain or Printed:





With cut pile
6

5¼


With looped pile
4½

4


D. Chenille and Axminster
9½

8¼


E. Other
8

7


II.—Germany.
Rm. per 100 kilogs.




Carpets (of wool), in the piece or shaped, printed or not;





Knotted, even if sewn
600
2
8


Woven
225
1
0


III.—United States of America.
Per square foot.
Per square foot.



Cents.
s.
d


Oriental, Axminster, Savonnerie, Aubusson and other carpets, rugs and mats, not made on a power-driven loom, plain or figured, whether woven as separate carpets, rugs, or mats, or in rolls of any width.
50
2
1


but not less than
45% ad val.
45% ad val.


Carpets, rugs and mats of oriental weave or weaves, made on a power-driven loom; chenille, Axminster carpets, rugs and mats; all the foregoing, plain or figured, whether woven as separate carpets, mats or rugs or in rolls of any width.
60% ad val.
60% ad val.


Axminster carpets, rugs, and mats, not specially provided for: Wilton carpets, rugs and mats; Brussels carpets, rugs and mats: velvet or tapestry carpets, rugs and mats; and carpets, rugs and mats of like character or description:





Valued at not more than 40 cents par square foot
40% ad val.
40% ad val.


Valued at more than 40 cents per square foot
60% ad val.
60% ad val.


Ingrain carpets, mats and rugs or art squares, of whatever material composed, and carpets, rugs and mats of like character or description, not specially provided for.
25% ad val.
25% ad val.


All other floor coverings, including mats and druggets, wholly or in chief value of wool, not specially provided for:





Valued at not more than 40 cents per square foot
30% ad val.
30% ad val.


Valued at more than 40 cents per square foot
60% ad val.
60% ad val.

this kind of thing without doing anything?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not ordinary business to have reciprocity on equal terms in these matters.

Following is the statement:

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the gross tonnage of ships under construction in British shipyards on 1st June, 1929, and on the latest date for which the figures are available?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Information as to the gross tonnage of ships under construction in British shipyards on 1st June, 1929, is not available. According to the quarterly shipbuilding returns, published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the tonnage of merchant vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards under construction in Great Britain and Ireland on 30th June, 1929, was 1,454,000 tons gross, and on 31st March, 1931, 694,000 tons gross.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Have the Government reached a conclusion about increasing this tonnage by giving credits to Russia?

Mr. SMITH: That is another question.

ITALIAN WOOLLEN TEXTILES (IMPORTS).

Mr. LOCKWOOD: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the Italian Government is subsidising wool textile goods imported into this country; and whether, in view of that fact and that such goods are produced under conditions of work and at rates of wages not operating in this country, he will take legislative steps to stop such dumping, which has a detrimental effect both upon trade and employment in this country?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I understand that the Italian Government accords to manufacturers in respect of exported goods certain assistance or privileges, but I have no information as to the particular application of such measures to woollen textiles exported from Italy to this country. I have noted the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the whole of the manufacturers in the West Riding have definite knowledge of these subsidies? In view of the state of unemployment in the wool textile trade, and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. BECKETT: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter will be raised on Adjournment.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many interviews have taken place between himself, the Home Secretary, and the representatives of the Lancashire cotton industry; if any progress has been made in these negotiations; and which portions of the cotton report have been put into operation or will be put into operation in the near future?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has attended three conferences in Manchester with representatives of the cotton industry, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was present at two of these. In addition, there have been several meetings in London, and many informal discussions between the Chief Industrial Adviser and representatives of the different sections of the trade. From the beginning of the conferences last year the desire to meet representatives of the interested organisations at any time convenient to them was made plain. As was explained in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) on the 2nd June, the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations is now engaged on a close investigation of all sections of the industry with a view to the formulation of plans dealing with the adjustment of capacity and with all other measures for the reduction of costs which can be undertaken or encouraged by joint action.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that these negotiations started nearly two years ago, and that nothing whatever has been done by the present Government to help the cotton industry?

Mr. SMITH: It may be that the hon. Member has correctly stated the time; I cannot say offhand. At the same time, it should be observed that a great deal of the delay is not the fault of the Government.

Mr. REMER: Are the Government still formulating plans?

Mr. SMITH: I stated that the questions are under the consideration of a joint organisation of the industry.

Mr. SANDHAM: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this industry is slowly but surely bleeding to death?

RUSSIAN PETROLEUM.

Mr. SMITHERS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he fan give the output of petroleum and benzine, for the first four months of this year, from the Azneft works and from the Grozneft works in Russia?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It is assumed that by petroleum the hon. Member means refined petroleum, i.e., kerosene, and, if so, the information asked for is not available. Statistics published by the U.S.S.R. Chamber of Commerce for Western Trade, however, show that the output of crude petroleum in Russia during the first four months of 1931 was 6,747,000 metric tons, of which it is understood over 90 per cent. was derived from the oilfields of the Azneft and Grozneft.

BRITISH COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (NORWAY AND SWEDEN).

Mr. SMITHERS: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the approximate number of British commercial travellers who paid for commercial travellers' licences in Norway and Sweden during the last year for which statistics are available?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Complete statistics as to the number of British commercial travellers visiting Norway and Sweden are not available but, as regards Norway, information obtained from the police authorities in Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and Stavanger shows that 256 British commercial travellers paid for licences in these four towns during 1930. I am endeavouring to obtain information on similar lines with regard to Sweden and I hope to be in a position to send some particulars to the hon. Member in the course of a few days.

Mr. SMITHERS: If our commercial travellers have to take out licences now in Sweden, why should not some action be taken by our Government to counteract that?

Mr. SMITH: That is an entirely different question from that on the Paper.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. LEES: 23.
asked the Attorney-General how many magistrates have been appointed in the Derbyshire county area during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The total number of appointments in the six years is 131. I will publish the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during 1927, 1928 and 1929 no magistrate has been appointed in the county of Derbyshire, and that the new advisory committee which was appointed two years ago has never been called to appoint magistrates?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I believe it to be the fact that during the years 1927–29 no magistrates were appointed in the county of Derbyshire, but that 24 were appointed in the year 1930.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any powers to deal with committees when the chairmen refuse to call them together?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor makes representations to which attention is always paid.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Are not most of these benches already overmanned?

Mr. KELLY: With the wrong people.

Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the last two years letter after letter has been sent appealing to the Lord Chancellor to take steps so that people who ought to be appointed on the bench should be appointed?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is intense dissatisfaction in many parts of the country, especially in London, and can he take any steps?

Following are the details:

The following appointments have been made to the Commissions of the Peace in Derbyshire:


Year.
County of Derby.
Derby City.
Chesterfield.
Glossop.


1925
…
…
…
…
10
13
5
—


1926
…
…
…
…
55
—
—
2


1927
…
…
…
…
No appointments were made in these years.



1928
…
…
…
…



1929
…
…
…
…
—
20
2
—


1930
…
…
…
…
24
—
—
—




Total
…
…
89
33
7
2


Total number of appointments in the six years … … 131

Mr. FREEMAN: 24.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the delay in calling together advisory committees and the dilatory procedure in appointing magistrates and justices of the peace in many districts; and whether he will take steps in this matter in order to secure representation of all classes of the community in these positions?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Advisory committees are called together if and when the appointment of additional magistrates is considered necessary. My Noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, is not aware of any general dissatisfaction in the matter, but he is taking steps to deal with the one or two cases where it is suggested that too long an interval of time has elapsed between meetings. In the appointments which he makes, my Noble Friend endeavours to include persons of all classes of the community.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is the Attorney-General aware that in one of the two counties which I represent it is now five years since a meeting of the Advisory Committee was called, and that the Chairman is still delaying calling a meeting; and that in the other county no representative of the working-classes has ever been appointed?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will bring those facts to the knowledge of my Noble Friend.

Mr. McSHANE: Does not the main difficulty lie in the fact that there is a large number of magistrates who do not act at all and who ought to be removed?

Major NATHAN: Is the Attorney-General aware that having regard to the
nature of modern legislation the lack of justices of the peace in working-class areas is becoming nothing short of a public scandal?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. and gallant Member will bring any particular instances to my knowledge, I shall be pleased to put them before my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor who deals with this matter.

EDUCATION (TEACHERS' HEALTH).

Miss LEE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to the increase within recent years in the number of teachers suffering from nervous breakdowns; and whether any investigation is being made into the possible causes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): My right hon. Friend would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which he gave last Thursday to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley).

Miss LEE: Does that answer include Scottish teachers as well as English teachers; if so, is an investigation to be held into the grievances in Scotland as well as into those in England?

Mr. JONES: The question does not ask particularly in regard to Scotland.

Mr. MORLEY: Is it not an admitted fact that there has been a large number of breakdowns among teachers in recent years, and should not that be a subject of investigation?

Mr. JONES: That is another question.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General the extent to which the payments due to the British Broadcasting Corporation in respect of their share of the revenue from licences are in arrears?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Viant): Under Clause 18 of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Licence, which was published in Command Paper 2756 of 1926, the amount due to the Corporation each year is payable in 12 equal instalments on the 16th of each month. These instalments have not fallen into arrear.

POST OFFICE CONTRACT (ENGAGEMENT OF LABOUR).

Mr. ALPASS: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that extra men have recently been engaged by his Department for work at Blackberry Hill, Bristol; that these men were not engaged through the medium of the local Employment Exchange; and whether he will take such steps as will ensure future engagements being effected by the agency of the Employment Exchange?

Mr. VIANT: The work in question was carried out under contract, and the men employed were engaged by the contractor and not by the Post Office.

INDIA (BURMA).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any further statement to make as to the rebellion in Burma?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace) which contains my latest information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the total outgoings from the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As there are only five figures, may we not have them now?

Mr. LAWSON: The names of the—

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not my question.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already passed on to the next question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. The hon. Member said that with my permission he would circulate these figures and I said I would like the figures now. There are only five figures, and there is plenty of time.

Mr. SPEAKER: By the time the hon. Member had put that point we had passed on to the next question.

Following is the reply:

The total payments out of the Unemployment Fund during the last five calendar years were as follow:—






£


1926
…
…
…
55,830,000


1927
…
…
…
42,978,000


1928
…
…
…
50,779,000


1929
…
…
…
51,173,000


1930
…
…
…
86,606,000

COURTS OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can state the names of the chairmen of the courts of referees who have officiated at Bridgeton and Parkhead Employment Exchanges, Glasgow, during the months of March, April and May; the number of cases heard by each court; and the number of claims disallowed by each court?

Mr. LAWSON: The chairmen at Bridgeton in the period in question were Messrs. Houston, Mitchell, Macdonald and Robertson; and at Parkhead Mr. McCallum. The number of cases considered by the Bridgeton Court was 1,571, of which 1,120 were disallowed; corresponding figures for the Parkhead Court were 934 and 539.

ROAD SCHEMES (GRANTS).

Mr. LAWTHER: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport what changes, if any, have
taken place in relation to the question of the amounts of grants towards county councils in order to further the development of their road schemes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): In a circular which my right hon. Friend issued to highway authorities on the 27th March last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, he explained that the normal rates of grant given in 1930–31 to approved schemes of road improvement and new construction would be continued in the current financial year, but that the additional grant of 15 per cent. which was offered subject to special conditions as to the recruitment of labour, in July, 1929, in connection with the Five Years' Programme (the primary object of which was the expedition of works for the relief of unemployment) would not be available, except in respect of schemes for which the additional grant had already been made or promised. From the commencement of the programme, schemes were only approved on the understanding that work would be put in hand at an early date, and the Government have decided that save in exceptional circumstances the additional grant shall not remain available for schemes on which work had not been commenced by the 31st March last, i.e. eighteen months after the terms were announced. No change has been made in the rates of grant to county councils for work in connection with the Trunk Roads Scheme.

Mr. LAWTHER: Will my hon. Friend be prepared to ask his right hon. Friend whether it is intended to reconsider the application, having regard to the fact that schemes were projected before the last circular was sent out?

Mr. PARKINSON: I know that many schemes have received consideration, but it was definitely laid down in the circular that it was expected that work would be commenced by 25th March. However, I will convey the remarks of my hon. Friend to the Minister.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. STEPHEN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the names of the medical referees on the panel for workmen's compensation cases and
the number of claims heard by each during the last year; and the number of cases in which each medical referee certified the workman fit for light or ordinary work?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Before this question is answered, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider a point of public importance in connection with the question. [Interruption.] I want you to consider whether it is advisable to give the names of referees.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must allow the Minister to say that.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The total number of medical referees appointed under the Act is 272, and the preparation of a statement giving their names and showing the number of cases referred to each would involve considerable labour, which my right hon. Friend, on the information before him, does not think would be justified. As regards the latter part of the question, he regrets that there are no records in the Home Office giving the information requested.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will my hon. Friend give me the names and the figures for Glasgow?

Mr. SHORT: I see no reason why that information should not be given.

ICE-CREAM VENDORS (REGISTRATION).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have forwarded to him resolutions recommending the registration of ice-cream vendors; and whether he proposes to take any action?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has recently received resolutions on this subject from 86 local authorities. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson) on this subject on the 4th June.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask if the Minister is considering this matter?

CENSUS (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the total population of Yorkshire and its 12 chief towns as disclosed in the recent Census?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to wait until it is possible to publish the figures for all counties and for all their constituent towns or areas, the preparation of which would be hampered and delayed by the necessity for extracting special figures of the results for particular localities.

Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. Lady explain why it should take so much longer to count the population south of the Tweed than in Scotland?

HON. MEMBERS: It is denser!

MALAYA (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. DAY: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the system of mui-tsai that exists in Malaya?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): A despatch dated 25th March gives a report of the steps taken in the Straits Settlements in 1930 to protect girls suspected of being mui-tsais. A copy of the despatch has been placed in the Library.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL BILL.

Mr. MANDER: 37.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the possibility of finding time for the further stages of the National Industrial Council Bill during the present Session?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am afraid I can hold out no hope of time being found for the discussion of this Bill.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Prime Minister consider finding time next Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will do my best, but the present state of this Bill is that it is what is technically called, I believe, blocked.

BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the first annual report of the Bank for International Settlements has now been received and considered by the Government?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): His Majesty's Government have received from the Bank for International Settlements a copy of its first annual general report, in accordance with Article XVII of the Trust Agreement, and have noted with interest the account there given of the operations undertaken by the bank.

Mr. MANDER: Will the report be made available to Members of this House?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I suppose the report is available to the public. It is issued for the information of shareholders.

Mr. MANDER: Will a copy be placed in the Library?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot say.

SILVER (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).

Mr. L. SMITH: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state what answer the Government propose to give to the invitation to Great Britain to take part in an international silver conference; and whether the proposed conference will take place in London?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No invitation to snch a conference has been received, and the second part of the question accordingly does not arise.

DEATH DUTIES.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount in Death Duties paid into the Treasury during the five years ended 31st December last in respect of Estate Duty; and how much of this was upon agricultural value of agricultural property and how much on excess principal value of agricultural property?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The total net receipt of Estate Duty in the five years ended the 31st March, 1931, was
£343,187,000. The payments in respect of agricultural property are not separately recorded, but it is estimated that the total amount of Estate Duty paid during this period in respect of agricultural property was about £13,500,000. I am unable to apportion this estimate as between agricultural value and excess principal value.

LAND VALUE TAX.

Sir F. HALL: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what is the estimated revenue in the financial year 1933–34 from the proposed Land Tax after deducting all administrative expenses and making reasonable allowance for possible loss of revenue under Income Tax and other like heads?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to what I said on this subject when moving the Land Value Tax Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means on 4th May.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement did not give any of the information asked for, and cannot he give us some idea as to the amount?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said in the statement referred to that it was quite impossible to give even an approximate estimate until at least the valuation had taken place—

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: And the right hon. Gentleman has seen the effect of the concessions he has made!

Sir F. HALL: And the concessions he has got to make!

CUSTOMS SEIZURES (DISPOSAL).

Captain BOURNE: 45.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the methods taken by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to dispose of goods confiscated for breach of Customs regulations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Goods seized for contravention of the Customs Acts are, as a general rule, sold by public auction or competitive tender. Tobacco suitable for smoking is supplied for use by the inmates of certain criminal
lunatic asylums, and unsmokable tobacco is supplied to national botanical gardens for fumigation purposes. Unsaleable goods and certain prohibited goods are usually destroyed.

Captain BOURNE: What steps have been taken to bring the sale of these goods to the notice of the public?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the amount realised last year?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Not without notice.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: How does the hon. Gentleman tell which is unsmokeable tobacco?

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the duty put on to the price of the goods when they are sold by the customs authorities?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE (for Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE): 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any proposals in the nature of Imperial Preference or likely to lead to a closer economic union between this country and the Dominions had been proposed to the Dominions for the consideration of the Ottawa Conference before the time when the postponement was decided upon; and, if so, whether any negotiations on these lines will be continued between now and 1932?

Mr. LUNN: Since the adjournment of the Imperial Conference last year, neither His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom nor, so far as I am aware, any of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, have put forward any specific proposals in anticipation of the intended Conference at Ottawa. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. BOYCE: Are the Government aware that if any such proposals had been made by the Imperial Government the Governments of Australia and New Zealand would have found it possible to send representatives to Ottawa this year?

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask whether, in view of the postponement of this Conference, the Government propose to proceed with the negotiations on their own policy of bulk purchase?

Mr. LUNN: I shall require notice of that question.

EX-ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Sir BASIL PETO): 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of the fund placed at the disposal of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, known as the Sumner Commission, has been paid to claimants as ex gratia; what amount, if any, has been paid or otherwise given to claimants on a footing other than ex gratia; what amount has been repaid to the Crown as repayment of loans made to claimants; and what balance is left over at the disposal of the Crown, taking into account the repayment of any loans which may have been made to claimants?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No fund was placed at the disposal of the Sumner Commission; the awards recommended by the Commission were paid by the Treasury from annual Votes. The total so paid to claimants amounts to £4,929,000. These payments were all made ex gratia and no payments have been made on any other footing. The sum of £639,000 has been received by way of repayment of advances to claimants. No balance is left over at the disposal of the Crown, since any unspent surplus on the annual Votes was surrendered in the usual way, and the receipts in respect of repayment of advances constitute revenue and have been paid over to the Exchequer.

Mr. WILLIAMS (for Sir B. PETO): 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, with regard to awards made by the Sumner Commission to claimants for damage in Turkey, payments have been made stated to be loans in advance, repayable from awards to be made by the Inter-Allied Commission in Paris; and whether such loans have, in fact, been covered by the payments made by the Inter-Allied Commission, and what fund has been charged with the payment of the balance, if any, of such loans as have been repaid?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The amounts paid to claimants for damage in Turkey in respect of awards by the Sumner Commission are only repayable if and in so far as payments are received by the claimants from the Inter-Allied Commission in Paris in respect of the same item of claim. Accordingly the last part of the question does not arise.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, from the Joint Committee, with Amendments [Title amended].

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Arnott, Lord Balniel, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Freeman, the Countess of Iveagh, Mr. Albert Law, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Philip Oliver, and Mr. West Russell.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th June].

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Exemptions.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): It will be remembered that last night, in the brief discussion which took place with regard to the Amendments to Clause 19, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) pointed out the difficulty of proceeding with the discussion of Clause 19, and mentioned that a considerable number of Amendments had not appeared on the Paper in time for discussion, and I promised to take that matter into consideration. I have done so, and I realise that it would be quite impossible to have a discussion of the Clause in the absence of the Government Amendments. Therefore, I place myself in the hands of the Opposition as to the procedure we should take.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I might withdraw Clause 19 and bring it forward as an amended new Clause. There is another alternative, and that is to postpone the consideration of Clause 19 until the end of the Committee stage. There is very little difference between these two suggestions. If the Clause were postponed, or if we were to bring forward a new Clause, it would really come in at the same point. I do not know that it would make any difference at all as to the amount of time available to the Opposition for the discussion of the amended Clause. However, I am prepared to take either of those two courses, and take the one which commends itself to the Opposition. I suggest that we should postpone the consideration of Clause 19 until we have reached Clause 37.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not accepted any Motion to postpone the Clause, because, if I accepted such a Motion now, it could not be debated at all. If I interpret aright the wish of the Committee, it is desirable that an
opportunity should be given to ascertain the precise position in which it stands in relation to this Clause.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I wish to raise a point of Order. I think it would be better to have the Motion negatived rather than postponed. If you, Mr. Dunnico, will allow me I would like to put the point that, whereas there is no difference from the point of view of the Government as between postponement and withdrawal of the Clause there is a difference because under the Rules of the House we cannot debate either the merits of the Amendments or the Clause on this Motion. May I call attention to a precedent which was set in 1918. On the 30th October, 1918, in Committee on the Tithe Bill, a Motion was made to postpone Clause 1, on which a discussion was desired, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), who was then Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, pointed out to the Committee that possibly there was an alternative. These were his words:
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member (Sir F. Flannery) as to a general discussion arising on the Motion, the discussion, if permitted, would be limited solely to the reasons for postponing the consideration of the Clause, and it could not touch the merits of the matter. There is a way open, of course, in Committee, which would provide for the discussion of the alternative scheme, and that would be to negative Clause 1."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1918; col. 1504, Vol. 110.]
I suggest for the consideration of the Committee that, seeing that there are so many Amendments which are not covered by the statement last night, and so many issues that might be discussed with a view to getting an indication of the mind of the Government with regard to them, it would be much more convenient from the point of view of the Committee, and would not at all harm the progress of the Bill, but, indeed, might facilitate it, to negative the Clause now, under your Ruling, instead of postponing it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee must understand that this is not a point of Order on which I have to decide. It has been decided by the Guillotine Motion. If a Motion to postpone the Clause were proposed, I should have no option but to accept it without debate. I feel, however, that it is the general wish of the Committee that it
should not be deprived of at least an expression of opinion. That is why, rather against the customary Rules of Order, I am allowing this strictly limited discussion. I assume that I have the assent of the Committee; otherwise, I could not permit it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is one point of difference between the two alternatives which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is true that in either case the discussion, whether of the postponed Clause or of the new Clause, would come on the same day, namely, on the Ninth Allotted Day; but, as I understand the matter, if the Clause is postponed, it would come into the first half of that day, because that is one of those days which are divided into two sections.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that, if the Clause is postponed, it will follow Clause 37, after 7.30 on that allotted day, and the Guillotine does not fall until 10.30 on the following day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be taken as the first Clause after 7.30?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That consideration of Clause 19 be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 37."

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Relief from tax in certain cases.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first Amendment on Clause 20—in page 21, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
Where any land unit has been included or would, but for any exemption given by law, have been included in an assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by any subsequent Act, for the year corresponding with the year of charge for land value tax under this Act, there shall be deducted from the land value of that land unit as ascertained in accordance with this Act the sum of four times the annual value determined, or but for exemption given by law would have been determined, for the purposes of the said assessment for the said Schedule A of the land, tenement, hereditament, or heritage, the land, on which such land, tenement, hereditament, or heritage is situate, is the land comprised in the said land unit.
Where the said sum, namely four times the said annual value, is equal to or exceeds the land value of the said land unit as ascertained by this Act there shall be charged on the owner of such land unit a tax at the rate of one-eighth of a penny for each pound for the land value of that land unit.
I have considerable doubt in my mind as to whether this Amendment is in order at this particular part of the Bill. Clause 20 deals only with reliefs from tax; that is to say, with those cases in which remissions are granted of the whole or part of the tax after it has been assessed and charged. This Amendment, however, does not deal with reliefs at all; it proposes that the land value of a unit on which the tax is charged shall be reduced in certain specified cases for assessment purposes. I am not Ruling now that the Amendment is out of order on the Bill, but I have grave doubts as to whether it is in order at this particular stage of the Bill, and also as to whether, if the Amendment were passed, it could be inserted in Clause 20. I have no desire, however, to deprive the Committee of the opportunity of discussing this issue and shall be glad to hear arguments for and against before giving my Ruling.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should have thought, myself, that it was certainly clear—I do not say abundantly clear—that such an Amendment as is proposed from these benches falls well within the ambit of this Clause. As you will see, this part of the Bill deals with Exemptions and Relief; that is the heading of the Clauses; and this, of course, is clearly a case of relief from the impact of the tax. Therefore, although perhaps, if the matter were very strictly-argued on highly technical assumptions, it might be held that the Amendment should properly come on Clause 14, it seems to me that the arguments upon it ought to be heard here.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I do not know what your Ruling will be with regard to this Amendment, but I should like to join with my right hon. Friend in suggesting that it is in its proper place here. When I come to deal with the Amendment, I shall hope to show the Committee that in every sense of the word it is a relief from the tax which would otherwise be imposed on the owner, and, therefore, subject to what you say now, I propose, with your consent, to move the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My point is that Clause 20 deals with relief subsequent to assessment. As I understand the purpose of the Amendment, it is to alter the basis of assessment. This Clause does not deal with assessments at all. The Clause which deals with assessments is Clause 14 and that appears to be the appropriate place for all matters dealing with assessments.

Mr. DAVIES: Under this Amendment relief is given to the owner in these circumstances, that, where you have in the assessment a certain position, namely, that four times the annual value equals or exceeds the true amount of the capital value, then no tax is payable. To put it in other words, if, after the assessment has been made, you discover that these two figures are equal, or that four times the annual value exceeds the other figure, relief to that extent is given from the tax. That is why I thought that this was the proper place for the Amendment, as it is a genuine case of relief from the taxation which would otherwise be imposed. If I might explain the way in which it works—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member has not really dealt with the point. I distinctly-pointed out that this Clause simply deals with relief to be given after the general assessment has been made. As far as I understand this Amendment, it is intended to alter the general assessment, and in that case it does not fall within the scope of this Clause.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wish to argue with the Chair, because, naturally, from past experience, I know how futile that is; but there can be no doubt whatever that this Amendment would be in order as a new Clause. There is no question whatever about that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have stated quite definitely that I have not ruled that the Amendment is out of order on the ground of inconsistency, or that it cannot be moved under the Bill. This Amendment may be perfectly in order in its proper place. What I am ruling now is that this Clause deals with relief, and does not deal with assessment. The Amendment does really seek to alter the basis of assessment, and, consequently, it is out of order on this
particular Clause. Therefore, as no case has been put to the contrary, I must rule definitely that it is out of order.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 21, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert instead thereof the words:
(3) Every person assessed to the tax in any year shall be entitled to relief from the tax for that year to the extent of the first ten shillings of the aggregate of the tax in respect of all land units on which he is assessed.

This Amendment, which is indeed purely a relief, is directed to the point of the 10s. exemption. Under the Bill it is provided that, where the amount of taxation payable by any person for the year of charge does not exceed 10s., no attempt is made to collect that tax and the person shall be exempt. The tax of 10s. is, of course, the equivalent of a land value of £120 and the effect, therefore, is that, if any person has a unit of which the land value does not exceed £120 for the year of charge, he is exempt. But, on the other hand, if a unit has a land value which exceeds, even by £1, the figure of £120, that unit is liable to tax. I was not going to discuss the general question of the desirability of an exemption of this character, because no one has used more robust language about the undesirability of making exemptions of this character in a tax than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. When the tax of 1909 was under discussion, he explained how extremely undesirable it was to say that a person should secure exemption solely on the ground of the smallness of the amount which he was going to have to pay. Appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman has defended this exemption on purely practical grounds, merely taking the ground that it was not worth while for the Exchequer to spend any time or money in recovering a tax of such a small amount.

I am not concerned at the moment to discuss the principle of the exemption, but I am concerned to discuss the method of exemption. Does it not seem very unreasonable that, if a person has a land unit of which the value is £119, he should pay nothing at all, but that, if he is the owner of a land unit valued at £121, he should pay 10s. 1d. tax in the year? The
effect of the Amendment would be always to reduce the amount of tax by the sum of 10s., which is the amount of the exemption. That is not a novel or an unreasonable principle. It already obtains in relation to a number of other taxes. It obtains to a certain extent with regard to Income Tax, and practically entirely with regard to Super-tax. It is altogether unreasonable to leave things standing as proposed in the Bill. In the hope that the Government will give the Amendment a friendly reception, I will confine myself at the moment to moving it and will reserve anything that I have to say to a later stage of the discusion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am sorry at so early an hour to have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman for the second time, but I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. The real reason he has himself explained. The object of this exemption was a matter of convenience. It is not an exemption granted on the same principle as the exemption under the Income Tax Acts. The object is to eliminate the collection of small sums. If the Amendment were adopted, you would still have the pennies and twopences where there was 10s. 1d. or 10s. 2d. to collect, and you would be no further forward as regards the matter of convenience if you left it without the 10s. exemption at all. The object of the exemption, as my right hon. Friend explained on the Second Reading, is in order that there shall not be put upon the Commissioners the liability to collect such small sums that the cost of collection substantially amounts to as much as the tax collected. [Interruption.] That is a different question altogether. If two units belong to one man, he will not get the exemption if they are both 6s. taxes, because in the aggregate the tax will be 12s. Therefore, one cannot exempt from valuation these small units, because they depend entirely on the ownership of them. There may be a person who owns a little plot in Scotland, one in Yorkshire and another in Devonshire. Between them the tax may come to more than 10s., in which case he will not be exempted. It is where the total tax payable only amounts to 10s. that he will be exempted, and the reason for that is purely the cost and trouble of collecting very small sums. If the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted, the
difficulty as to the collection of small sums would be exactly the same as if there were no exemption at all.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: We have here an unexpected opportunity of making the Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly eat his words, as we have long wished to do. We have long wished to have an explanation of his changed attitude on this very important matter. Of course, we now realise that it is a matter of convenience that this exemption is be made, although in his original speech he said, with almost a knowing leer, that it would exempt the majority of the working-classes. I do not know whether that latter remark had any basis in principle or whether it was merely a comment on the situation which arose, but it has been commented upon very adversely by all fair-minded people. It is not difficult to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman a desire to please his supporters in this matter. I know that it is not the custom to impute motives, but, unless he wished to please his supporters, it is a little difficult to see why he made that addition to his plea for expediency. There could be no more interesting occasion than this, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considered to be, as we all know, the Iron Chancellor. His supporters on that side of the Committee are continually comparing him favourably with the rest of his colleagues. They say publicly and privately that the Chancellor at any rate is a man who never changes his mind and is prepared to stand by the principles for which he always stood; a man who entered public life in the service of a great cause and is prepared to go on throughout his career on exactly the same lines. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at one time, was one of the most redoubtable opponents of these particular taxes in this country. He was prepared to enter into this controversy on the side of nationalisation. He was prepared to deny every—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must realise that we cannot have a general discussion on every Amendment, and that we must keep to the subject matter of the Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am very sorry, and without more ado I will quote the exact and precise words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a similar situation in which he took exactly the
opposite view in 1913: on a similar proposal of exemption introduced by the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George):
The Land Taxes were recommended to us, because it was intended that they should tax something that was not the creation of any individual, but the creation of the community, and for the time being the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was content to take 20 per cent. of that for the State. Now he proposes to abandon that principle altogether, and he practically says that it is wrong for a rich man to take something which is the creation of the community, but it is not wrong for the poor man to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1913; col. 1008, Vol. 56.]
He was putting words into the mouth of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer as a matter of principle. Even then it was a matter of convenience, as he said at the time, and it was found to be impracticable or inadvisable to raise from large numbers of the working class of this country so small a sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time did it as a matter of expediency, as the right hon. Gentleman, indeed, said, and I think that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that this was so, but he was able to put it upon the ground of principle at that time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then went on to say—I have not the exact words—that the whole principle of land taxation had broken down and should be abandoned in favour of powers to acquire land.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising matters which would be in order upon the Second Reading of the Bill, but not upon this Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think that I am perfectly entitled to ask for an explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's spiritual Æneid in this connection.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The speech to which the hon. Member refers was given upon a question which had nothing at all to do with land valuation.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I shall await with interest and in expectation the subsequent explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go on to deny that he took the opposite point of view to which he takes now on that occasion,
I shall be satisfied with such an explanation of his spiritual Æneid, but I do not think that it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain on the line which he has adopted his words of 1913 in justification of this particular exemption. I think that he would be compelled to explain that in the time which had elapsed he had changed his mind and in the end had found that it was practicable and consistent with principle to put a burden upon the wealthier classes of the community and not upon the poorer classes of the community. On different and more general lines it is possible that there might be a great deal that is beneficial in land taxes. One of the most deplorable symptoms of modern legislation is that the burden of taxation is more and more put upon a few shoulders and less and less upon the whole of the community. There are many who think that the community at large should have a stake in the country and that to broaden the burden of taxation would be to increase the sense of responsibility in the country. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been faithful to his principles in this matter, and had he been consistent when he said that God gave the land to the people and that anyone who attempted to take or keep the land away from the people was guilty of theft, whether it might be a small or a large amount, he might have applied this system of taxation as a great beneficent system extending over the whole face of the community, increasing the sense of responsibility—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the general principles of the Bill on this Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If I rightly understand the principle of the Amendment, it is to call attention to the exemptions which are given to a large part of the community over the whole face of this taxation. Therefore, one is in order in saying that it is wrong that a certain part of the community should be taxed in this way and that the rest should not be taxed in this way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he really was a man of principle and cared about this proposal of his, should have applied it to the whole of the community irrespective of whether it was expedient or too expensive.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The real object of the Amendment is to secure a general relief to the extent of 10s. The question of exemption does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think that it would be difficult to deny that this further exemption is in its very terms intended and expressed to call attention to the great exemptions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given. If you rule me out of order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I need only refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Amendment. It is a simple and a plain matter. I take it that the object of the Amendment is that everybody should be exempted to the extent of the first ten shillings.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is not the object of the Amendment to remove the distinction between the rich and the poor which the Chancellor of the Exchequer formerly denounced as permitting robbery if committed by the poor while robbery was not permissible by the rich?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member, the whole principle of the Bill might be raised, if I allowed the discussion to go on without some restriction.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: We are discussing the omission of Sub-section (3) as to whether you should have an exemption of 10s., which is a rather different point from the point in the Amendment.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Bill says that certain people who are chargeable to tax in respect of land having a value of less than £120 are to be exempt. That is to say there is to be an exemption for everybody whose total duty payable does not exceed 10s. The effect of my Amendment is to give everybody an exemption of 10s. I certainly suggest that in those circumstances there ought to be no objection raised to my hon. Friend.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not ruling out of order the arguments applying generally, but I have ruled out of order criticism of the tax. That does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I, personally, am content to keep my arguments within
your Ruling, and I say that the arguments which I have been raising start at the bottom of the scale of value instead of at the top. It is the same subject matter. I have been pleading for equal treatment for all. I suggest that you should extend a little further, 4.0 p.m. or all the way up the scale, the exemption you have given to a limited class of the community. I say that the Government have no basis at all for the refusal of this Amendment, because they are giving an exemption on grounds of expediency to a very large class, and they are not extending it to others. There can be no basis of fairness in that. There may be a basis of expediency, even of political expediency, but there can be no basis of a right and a proper principle which ought to be applied. Therefore, I think that we should have a further answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has escaped from the dilemma in which he was placed by escaping from the Committee, and I think that a further reply is needed from the Government on this Amendment. There really can be no answer to it, except that it may be inexpedient to work, and it may let off from taxation a large number of people in this country whom nothing would induce to vote for the Labour party.

Lord ERSKINE: I am sorry that the learned Solicitor-General found himself unable to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I cannot say that the arguments which he put forward impressed me very much, particularly his argument about convenience, because we on this side of the Committee well know that it is not merely convenience which made the Chancellor of the Exchequer give this original exemption. The main reason why the right hon. Gentleman gave this exemption was purely a matter of political expediency. After all, what did he say?
As right hon. Members opposite appear to be much interested in the matter, I will add the further information that this relief will relieve practically the whole of the dwellings owned by the working classes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 56, Vol. 252.]
I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have added that little tit-bit, unless he had really got in his mind that his object was not the collection of the tax, or to make easier
the valuation, but simply because he knew that if this tax were imposed on everybody, there would be little chance, indeed, of any hon. Member on the opposite side being returned to this House again. That was the real reason why that original exemption was given, but I would like to point out to the learned Solicitor-General that those words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that practically the whole of the dwellings owned by the working classes in this country would be exempted, are not-correct, because there are a large number of working men in this country who have put their savings into houses, and own one, two or sometimes three houses. [Interruption.] Are hon. Members under the delusion that that is not so? For these reasons, I do think it might be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
It seems to me that the whole of the Debate on the Land Value Tax is being carried on on behalf of the Treasury in a manner in which most Debates are not carried on. When Amendments are moved on Finance Bills, and particularly Amendments dealing with taxation, I think it has been the invariable practice of the Minister who is answering for the Treasury to say that either he can or cannot accept an Amendment, but the reason, as a rule, why he rejects an Amendment is because he says that it will cost the revenue far too much. In refusing Amendments to this Finance Bill, no defence on those lines has been adopted from the Treasury Bench, for the simple reason that, for the first time in history, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, when bringing in his Budget, that he could not possibly tell how much revenue he was going to get, and would not even make a guess. I wonder if since that time the Treasury have made a guess, and whether it would be possible for the Solicitor-General, who, apparently, is always answering for the Government, to tell us how much money would be lost to the State if our Amendment were accepted. I cannot believe that it would be a great deal. After all, as my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said, this is merely following out the practice of the Income Tax, and is no new principle. There have been many Amendments
going about lately in which both sides have given up their principles. Which party has given up most, of its principles, I will not at this moment hazard a guess. Nevertheless, it is rather difficult for as at this moment to discuss some of these Amendments, because what has happened? Clause 19 has, very properly, been postponed, and, owing to the extremely inefficient advice given to hon. Members below the Gangway by their so-called experts, an Amendment has been moved out of order. Therefore, we have to discuss these Amendments at short notice, mainly on account of the extraordinary inefficiency of that advice. The Government might have accepted this particular Amendment. They cannot say that it is going to cost much. They are going to value the whole of the property in any case, and, unless they accept this Amendment, they will have a great deal of trouble with the electors.

Major NATHAN: No one, of course, will deny that there is much validity in the contention which has been put forward as to the inconvenience in the collection of small amounts, but because it is inconvenient to collect small or almost negligible amounts of tax, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer called them when introducing the original proposal, that is no reason, when without inconvenience that can be done, why the same measure of relief should not be extended to all landowners. After all, whether there is or is not to be exemption, there is to be, as the Noble Lord has said, valuation and assessment, and it is only at the point of collection that a differentiation is made. We are all familiar with the Income Tax assessment when allowance is made, as a matter of routine, m respect of well-defined matters, and there should be no difficulty at all, I submit to the learned Solicitor-General, when presenting an assesment for Land Value Tax in writing off an allowance of 10s.
The suggestion made in this Amendment is that every person shall be entitled to relief from tax to the extent of the first 10s. If any taxpayer becomes liable, as the result of valuation and assessment, to pay not 10s. but £10 under the Bill as drawn, there is not the least difficulty, on the ground of inconvenience, in amending his form of assessment by stating that he will pay this tax upon £10 less a statutory allowance of 10s.,
which is precisely the procedure adopted in every Income Tax assessment in respect of the first £225 or £250 of income as regards a reduction in the rate of tax borne. It is a procedure with which the Income Tax authorities and the taxpayer are completely familiar, And although, as I say, on grounds of convenience, that may be a perfectly sound reason for not collecting the tax below 10s., it has no application at all to the point raised by this Amendment.
Let me say to the learned Solicitor-General that, from the point of view from which I regard this matter, it is not a matter of very much importance from the financial point of view whether the individual taxpayer is exempted from the first 10s. or not. What is of importance is that if there is to be an exemption, it should be applicable to all taxpayers. If the learned Solicitor-General had said, as he has failed to say, that the financial result of conceding this Amendment would be fatal to the whole scheme underlying the Land Tax proposals, that is an entirely different matter, but, on the question of finance, the Solicitor-General has maintained an absolute silence. If he has any arguments on those lines to advance, naturally the Committee will give them the greatest consideration, but the argument on the ground of convenience seems to me to be entirely irrelevant, if I may be permitted to say so, to the Amendment under consideration.
My object in rising, however, has not been merely to attempt to make that point. It would be wrong, in my judgment, that it should go out to the world that, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other speakers, the result of the exemption of the 10s. will be to relieve practically the whole of the dwellings owned by the working classes. I do not know, and I would venture no assertion at all with regard to the dwellings of the working classes in the country at large. There are other hon. Members who are far more able than I am to check the validity of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am able to speak with regard to the position in London, and with regard to that position, the result of the imposition of this Land Tax must be, not to relieve the working-class dwellings, but to have two—I will not say direct, but indirect
and immediate effects. One is to reduce the amount available in the hands of landlords for expenditure upon repairs of working-class dwellings, and the other is to send up the rents, except in the case of those dwellings subject to the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act. The benefit of the Clause, in so far as there is substance in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will grant relief to owners of dwelling houses, will apply only to the owners of land on which those houses are situated. The benefit of this Clause can only apply to those who own the land. As regards tenement dwellings and weekly dwellings, it will not be of any benefit to the working-class person. It will fall upon him, and in the end it will be paid out of his pocket. It is for the reason that I feel the abatement is misleading as regards large classes of the working-class population of London that I could not allow it to go unchallenged, and therefore I have trespassed upon the patience of the Committee.

Major COLFOX: Does the hon. and gallant Member speak on behalf of the Liberal party, and may we expect their support in the Lobby?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I have listened to a good many explanations by the Solicitor-General and certainly he endeavoured to get out of a very difficult position, but with all the care that he exercised he could not state that he had a good case to make. We often hear about one law for one class and another law for another class". Irrespective of whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have said subsequently it is clear that when he made his speech on the Second Reading he plainly indicated that the intention was to give a benefit to a large number of people who were supporters of the Socialist party. It is nonsense talking about the inconvenience that there would be in regard to collecting these small amounts. Take the position in regard to licences paid under the British Broadcasting Association. Of that fee of 10s. a part is retained by the Postmaster-General, which means the Government, and a part goes elsewhere. The suggestion of the Government with regard to the inconvenience of collecting small amounts may suit a certain number
of their supporters, but it will not suit the bulk of the people throughout the country. They will realise that this has been done to suit the supporters of the Socialist Government. As to the idea that it is going to be a relief given to the working classes, I would point out that a man may have a small freehold house, the value of the ground being £140. It may be that his next-door neighbour does not own his freehold, but pays ground rent on the basis of £8 or £9 a year. It is well recognised that ground rent is worth at least 20 years' purchase. In the circumstances, the man who owns the leasehold house pays no Land Tax, but the owner of the freehold property has to pay 1d. in the £ on the basis of £140, while a man who owns a house the land of which is worth only, say, £110 or £115 has not a sou to pay. That cannot be reasonable.
Unless the Government want to say that they desire to excuse certain people from paying tax because they are supporters of the party to which they belong, it is only equitable that they should accept our Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer let the cat out of the bag, unintentionally. He did not mean to say what he did. Have the Government any desire to be equitable? If it is inconvenient to collect the first 10s., let them say that where the amount is in excess of 10s., where the amount chargeable is, say, £10 they will give credit for 10s. My hon. Friend was anxious to know whether the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) were the views of the Liberal party. We submit that our Amendment is fair and equitable. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will press it to a Division, and I shall look with a certain amount of suspicion as well as pleasure to see what action the Liberal party takes.

Mr. KELLY: I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. Living close by Dulwich, I hope that the people of Dulwich will read the speech that we have just heard, and that the people of London will take note of the statement from the Liberal benches. What is there that is not equitable in the Government
proposal? It is asking that those who have a possession which is not worth more than £120 shall be exempt from the payment of the 10s. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am asked why, and I think the question is asked by an hon. Baronet who represents an Edinburgh constituency. The reply is, that it is for the same reason that the people who have not a sufficient income are not asked to pay Income Tax. Hon. Members opposite were forced to agree to that; they cannot help themselves. We are now dealing with people whose possession does not demand from them that they should pay more than 10s. Hon. Members opposite would have us believe that they believe in equity. They say that if you are a wealthy man and you are possessed of 100 or 1,000 units of land—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or two!"]—or two, if you like, but 1,000 units is more in mind at the moment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjori-banks) said, "You are penalising the wealthy."

This Clause deals with those who are well able to pay and who ought to have been paying long ago, if Parliament had been fair. We propose that the country should demand payment from those who can afford to pay what they ought to have been made to pay in the past. I can well understand the strong feeling that is felt on the other side. Of course, I do not blame them for endeavouring to save the wealthy, but I am hoping that the people of this country will realise, when they read the speeches that are being delivered from the other side, that they would like to put the burden, if it were possible, upon those least able to bear it. I hope that the matter will go to a Division, so that we can point out to the people that the party opposite have endeavoured to impose a charge upon people who are least able to afford it and are endeavouring to take the burden from the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member, if he will permit me to say so, has fallen into a double error. He has failed to appreciate the principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to justify the tax, and he has failed to understand the effect and scope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exemptions and reliefs and the particular exemption or relief which we are
discussing. If the hon. Member does not accept my statement—

Mr. KELLY: I do not.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me say something, first of all, as to the principle of the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that land was given by the Creator to the community and that its value is not the creation of man but of the Creator, or of the community. It is, therefore, a fit subject for special taxation, and he proposes to levy a tax upon the land value accordingly. If you justify the tax on land on the ground that nobody has a right to own it and that if they are still permitted to keep a kind of ownership they must pay toll to the State for it, surely that principle applies to whoever owns the land whether he is a very rich man or a very poor man and whether he owns much land or little land. The only difference that you are entitled to make is that you tax him according to the value of the land which he owns. You cannot on that principle justify the exemption. I am not going to elaborate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on a previous occasion, because I understand that a right hon. Friend of mine proposes to take the matter up later. It is sufficient for me at this point to say that the argument he adduced against the exemption given by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is fatal to the exemption which he proposes to make on his own tax. It destroys the principle on which it is based. It makes it no longer a tax for permission to hold something which belongs to the community but a tax on certain people for permission to hold land from which other people are exempted.
I come to a further point made by the hon. Member. He said that the exemption is upon the same basis as the Income Tax exemption. It is not in the least the same. The Income Tax exemption relief is in relation to the total wealth of the owner. This exemption has no relation to the total income of the person taxed, but it has relation only to the amount of income which he draws from a particular class of property. He may own £100,000 in Consols and also a plot of land of £120 value. He pays nothing under this tax in relation to the land
of £120 value, but, if another man owns a plot of land worth £120, and that is everything that he owns in the world, he will have to pay.

Mr. KELLY: That applies to Income Tax.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it does not. I might introduce the hon. Member to an elementary knowledge of income Tax, but all that I can hope to do within the limits of what I shall be allowed by the Chair is to introduce him to an elementary knowledge of the Bill and to the particular part of the Bill which we are now discussing. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that his defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exemption, and also of the limitation of that exemption, is without foundation. If it is to be justified at all the Solicitor-General must come to his rescue and, with his usual skill, find better reasons than those which the hon. Member has been able to produce.

Mr. BIRD: It is a pleasure to hon. Members on this side of the Committee to see one hon. Member opposite un-muzzled. I am quite certain that hon. Members opposite really want to understand the Bill, although I believe that many of them have not yet read it. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) attempted to make one point, and it was this, that the Amendment was moved for the purpose of benefiting the wealthy. I want to give one or two examples which will explain to the hon. Member how it will work the other way. I put down an Amendment on the Order Paper which, unfortunately, has been passed over, or it may have been postponed, which would have served the same purpose as the present proposal. The cases I had in mind were these. In many rural areas there are mills where the housing accommodation has been provided by the owners of the mills, at an uneconomic rent. These houses are occupied by the men and women who work in the mills. The object of my Amendment was that whether they were assessed as single units or aggregated together they should be exempt from this tax where they were all in the occupation of the employés at the mill. This was not with the idea of benefiting the owner of the mill, but in order to save the rents of the employés being raised.
This land tax will not fall on that employer but on the employés who live in the houses upon which the tax is to be paid. I hope the hon. Member for Rochdale, who knows cases of this kind, will realise what this proposed exemption means, and that if ever my Amendment is considered by the Committee he will vote for it. This is not a, tax upon the rich as the hon. Member suggests, but it will mean an additional 10s. a year on the rent of employés living in houses under these conditions.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I only desire to explain why I intervene in this Debate. I did not hear, as I was engaged on some Scottish business, the speech to which we who take exception to the view expressed on the opposite side of the Committee are supposed to subscribe, and I enter this caveat, that not having heard that speech I cannot be taken as subscribing to it or otherwise. I intervene because it appears to me that if this exemption is not a mere sop to the supposed supporters of the Government, if this is not really a sop to a certain class of property owners—I do not like to think that this Government would do anything like that—there must be some other reason for it. It may be that the reason is this, that it may be unfair to tax property which is only taxable up to 10s. because of oncosts and other charges. If that is so, surely it applies to all property however valuable it may be. There may be adequate reasons why all property should be exempt for the first 10s. It is impossible to say that just because a man does not happen to own property of more than £120 in value that he should be exempt, unless it is sheer bribery.
If the principle is right the first 10s. exemption ought to be applied to all kinds of property. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has said that he did not propose to deal with the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in August, 1913, and, therefore, I will leave that matter to more competent hands, merely saying this, that there was a very definite attack made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
No more scathing attack has ever been made, and yet we find the right hon. Gentleman now eating his own words. I do not like to think that this is mere bribery—I always like to take a very charitable view of my opponents—but unless some justification is put forward we are bound to say to our constituents that the Government are bribing people who will support them, but at the same time they must beware that their assessments are not put up the year after this Bill becomes law and they find that they are still in the net.

Sir BASIL PETO: Unfortunately, being engaged on other public business, I was not able to hear the reply of the Solicitor-General to this Amendment, but I have been informed of the arguments he put forward, and I want to say just a word or two about them. I put down this Amendment, indeed I drafted it, and I should like to tell the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) why the proposal in the Amendment is infinitely preferable to the proposal of the Government in the Bill. The Government propose to exempt entirely all people owning land the value of which would not render them liable to a tax of 10s. That would have this effect, that if anyone owned a house or a piece of land just under £120 in value he would pay nothing, but if the value of the land was just over that amount he would have to pay something just over 10s. Certain general principles of taxation have been followed in our Income Tax which have been designed for the purpose of avoiding these anomalous sudden jumps. It is obviously difficult to justify the fact that because one piece of land is in an area which gives it a trifling additional value it should be subject to the tax, whilst another piece of land, exactly similar, is subject to no tax at all.
Under the Income Tax everybody is allowed to claim exemption on the first £135 of their income. If anyone has an income of one or two pounds over that amount the tax collected is very trifling, and I have never heard that there is any special difficulty about it. It seems to me to be better to exempt the first ten shillings of the tax in the case of everyone, whether they are paying 10s. or £100. The principle is already well established in our Income Tax law, it is one which people understand and, more important, it is one which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer can justify. The Solicitor-General, I understand, answered the Amendment by saying that the exemption was designed expressly to save the expense and trouble of collecting trifling sums from a large number of people. That is a specious argument, which seems to carry a certain amount of weight, but the Solicitor-General admitted that you cannot tell whether a unit of land is or is not above or under the £120 value unless it is valued; and it is the valuation which is the expensive matter. That has to be done in any case, and it is therefore a comparatively trivial matter if the land is a few pounds over the £120 to calculate the amount of the tax to be demanded. Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods, that is the method proposed by the Amendment and the method in the Bill, undoubtedly the balance of advantage and equity and justice is with the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Rochdale seems to have entirely misunderstood its effect. I do not propose to charge anybody with any tax which the Government do not propose to charge. All I wish to do is to do away with the ridiculous anomaly of two people with almost exactly similar sites one of which is paying 10s. 3d. tax and the other no tax at all. No one can justify that. We are not proposing to tax people if the site value of their house is under £150. What we are doing, and the hon. Member for Rochdale will have to admit that he is wrong, is to say that where the site value of a house is a little over £120 that the tax collected should be only 6d. as against the 10s. 6d. proposed to be collected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are therefore proposing to give a much greater exemption to working-class owners, to small house property, than that proposed by the Government.

Mr. KELLY: May I point out to the hon. Member that that is not what hon. Members opposite are suggesting? They have suggested that no one should be exempt.

Sir B. PETO: No, that is not what the Amendment says. I am telling the hon. Member what the Amendment will do, and what I intend it to do, if it is accepted. It will grant a much greater exemption to small householders than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take the case of a person whose land is
worth £180. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that he should pay 15s. I propose that he should pay 5s. The tax will be graduated right through, with the exception of the first £120 of land value, or 10s. a year. I founded my Amendment upon the well-known principle of the Income Tax which has been worked for years. I cannot resist a brief reference to the wider question that has been debated on this Amendment, of whether there should be any exemption or not. That is what the hon. Member for Rochdale suggested.

Mr. KELLY: No, no!

Sir B. PETO: It is a very curious thing that we should have this proposal of exemption of the small landowner, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of all people. It shows what a wonderful power there is in the inversion of two figures. In 1913 his opinion on this question was exactly the opposite of his opinion in 1931. If hon. Gentlemen would like to have the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman, I have them here. I must say, in justice to my Amendment, that that question has nothing to do with the proposals that I have put before the Committee. My proposal is a fairer one than that of the Government. I do not believe it would cost another farthing in tax collection. Finding out what the site is worth is work that will have to be done in any case. It will cost no more to collect a few pence or 5a. than to collect 15s. The only difference will be that in three years' time, when the tax comes to fruition, undoubtedly the Chancellor of the Exchequer will collect a little less than he proposes under his scheme. The people concerned will be the great mass of small house owners. The arguments put forward by the Solicitor-General today were either not thought out with his usual care, or they were not so solidly based that they cannot be shaken by superior arguments.

Mr. SIMMONS: The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) suggested that if we on the Government side were really true to our principles, there would be no exemptions at all. The object of the Amendment under discussion is to extend the scope of exemption, and to say that the exemption of the first 10s. shall apply not merely to those who hold one unit of land worth
£120, but to those who may hold 100 units, each worth £120. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have been charging us with class legislation. They say that the scheme of the Bill is merely a sop to the small man, the working man, that by limiting the exemption we are holding out a sop to those who we think would vote for us in return for a sop. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not object to the 10s. remission to the man who holds only one unit of land worth £120, but they want to extend that 10s. remission to the man who holds a much larger area of land.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Suppose the figure is £121?

Mr. SIMMONS: I am not on that point at the moment. I am not going to be led up the garden. My point is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not object to the 10s. remission for the man who holds land worth £120, but they want to extend it to the man who holds land worth £120,000. They say in effect, "If the Exchequer has a sum of money to give away, let it give it away broadly to everyone. Do not limit this benefit to the small man. In other words, do not put up a means test." Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to a means test for the landowners are asking for a means test for the widow, and they suggest that we ought to have a means test for the unemployed. I hope that the Amendment will be rejected. It may be true, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said, that the tax ought to go on everyone without any limitation or exemptions; but then we do not live in a perfect world. We have to face economic circumstances created, not by ourselves, but by a system which right hon. Gentlemen opposite represent, and any small concessions which are made by this side to ease the burden of the workers, are not in the nature of a bribe, but in the nature of justice to the people whom we represent.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. Member who has just spoken has taken rather a wide brush. There are many landowners who do not own £120,000 worth of land. There are many small landowners
with £350 or £360 worth, and it is to their rescue that the Mover of the Amendment desired to come. It is true that the hon. Member did not wish to be "led up the garden," but I would like to hear him deal with the point of the small unit worth £121 or £130. Sooner or later the owner of such a unit is bound to ask for an explanation why he should pay 10s. or 11s. on his unit while his neighbour gets off scot-free. Countless cases of that kind will arise and hon. Members opposite will have to give an answer to them. It will not be sufficient for them to tell their constituents, "Do not lead me up the garden," even if they have one.
I want to deal with what I call the convenience theory advanced by the Solicitor-General. I understood him to say that in cases where the cost of collection is likely to be far in excess of the amount realised, the State does not desire to levy the tax. That is a principle which is applied to a great deal of taxation and it has resulted in the abandonment of such taxation. According to the argument, the position is this: The Solicitor-General tells the taxpayer "It is inconvenient for the State to collect a penny or sixpence; therefore we will collect 100 per cent. more." That surely is not an argument which a taxing authority can advance. I can understand the point of view that it is not worth while collecting these small amounts, but it is not an argument for a tax to say that, because the amount of the tax is too small to collect, 100 times the amount will be collected. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) seemed slightly at a lose to understand the provisions of the Bill, but after he had heard the Mover of the Amendment explain the Amendment he could have had no illusions on the matter. The hon. Member was mistaken in the earlier stages of his thought because he defended the tax on the ground that it was like the Income Tax Act, not levied upon persons who had no income over—

Mr. KELLY: I defended the exemption on the ground that certain people whose general income is below a particular figure are not called upon to pay any Income Tax at all.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I quite see that point. I wonder how the hon. Member
explains the analogy of the Income Tax Acts, for, no matter what your income, whether it is £200,000 a year or whatever it is, you still get the benefit of the £135 exemption. In that case all taxpayers great and email are placed on exactly the same level in regard to exemptions. It may be that we shall get another speech from the Liberal benches, to follow the very able speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). The principle enunciated in the hon. and gallant Member's speech will prove quite unassailable. It is probable that it will cause great trouble to the Liberal party, and necessitate more comings and goings between their headquarters and Downing Street, and that another formula will be called for, or whatever else is the best method of squaring the circle.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), for apparently his speech was so valuable that every right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite who has followed him has found it necessary to comment on the speech. No tribute to the speech could be greater than that. Speaking as a new Member of only two years' standing, I always understood, long before I came here, that the party opposite were the party of the rich, and if I needed corroboration of that belief, I have had it overwhelmingly during the last two years. The history of our laws has proved that very conclusively.
May I now deal with the charge made by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford), who has left the Chamber, against the party to which I have the honour to belong, of bribery of those people whose land has a capital value of not more than £120? One would suppose that the 8,000,000 voters who voted for this party at the last election were comprised entirely of comparatively poor people. My experience is that the poor people have yet to be educated to vote for this party for their own advantage, and that very often they vote blindly for the party opposite. If there is anything in the charge of bribery, I think it is very misplaced, and I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to give us the credit of alienating a large number of people who might be expected to vote for
this party at the next election, because the Government are adamant on this point. I confess that I have some personal sympathy with the arguments that have been advanced by the party opposite, because I myself would benefit very greatly if the Government made the concession asked for, and I ask the party opposite to regard me as an average member of the people who vote Labour at election times and to give us credit for the personal sacrifices that we are prepared to make.
Speaking with the comparative irresponsibility of a back bencher, I would go much further than that and accept the charge, if it is a charge, that this is a deliberate attempt to relieve those people whose wordly wealth in land does not exceed £120 worth. I at any rate would plead guilty to alleviating their position in the matter of taxation, and I hope that our Front Bench will never be ashamed to confess than we are the party of the poor. Already the poor, as such, pay far more Income Tax—I should say taxes in proportion to their income—than any other class of the community, and I should be proud to believe that we are deliberately legislating for the amelioration of the lot of the poorest of the land. I recognise that I am following here a great Member, known by many elderly Members of this august Assembly, in my predecessor the late Sir Charles Dilke, who always claimed that one of his ambitions was to enable the poor man to stand up to the rich. I trust that in that respect at least I am not an unworthy successor.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is leading the Committee into a general Debate.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I am sorry. I hope that from subsequent. Debates concerning this Bill it will be known throughout the country that, while Labour is in office., if not in power, Britain's poor will be defended.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan) started his speech by telling us that he had not been in the House very long, and that he had always understood that the party on this side was the party of the rich. That is a fallacy which is held by very many Members on the Labour benches, and it is instilled into them before they stand for Parliament.
I may say that my constituency is entirely a working-class constituency, and I hope and trust that I represent it, as a Conservative, just as well as any Labour Member could do. I have always tried to represent my constituents and to do all that I can for them, and I think I represent them just as well as could any Labour man. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his land tax proposals in Committee, made this statement:
By this Measure we assert the right of a community to the ownership of land. If private individuals continue to possess a nominal claim to the land, they must pay a rent to the community for the enjoyment of it, and they cannot be permitted to enjoy that privilege to the detriment of the welfare of the community. … The land was given by the Creator, not for the use of Dukes, but for the equal use of all His people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931: col. 48, Vol. 252.]
I submit that the Creator did not give the earth to the community; probably the community was given to the earth, because the earth appeared considerably before the community. But, assuming that an individual who owns £120 worth of land has a perfect right to own that much land without being called upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay a certain rent to the community for it, where is the principle in a man who owns £121 worth of land being called upon to pay a toll to the community? It is a question of principle. If every person in the country has a right to £120 worth of land, then the Government should accept the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) cited the Income Tax. He knows quite well, or he ought to know, that so far as Income Tax is concerned there is a flat rate of allowance made to all people who pay the tax, whether they have £1,000, £5,000, or £20,000 a year. That is the principle for which we are asking in this Amendment, and I should have thought that, as that principle has already been admitted in the case of Income Tax, it should also be admitted here. Hon. Members opposite and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are always saying that an investment in land is different from an investment in any other sort of property. I should like to quote one little sentence from a passage written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in "Socialism and Syndicalism," as follows:
The Socialists may claim that there is no real difference between land and capital of a fundamental character.
So we see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has two views. He has one view which he writes in "Socialism and Syndicalism," and another view which he expresses in this House. The principle on which we proceed is that if one person who owns a unit of land, however small or however big, has, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, a right to a certain portion of land without paying a toll to the community for that land, then every person in the country has just as much right to have one particular portion of land worth £120 as any other person, whether he owns one, two, or three units of land.
A man may have certain savings, and instead of investing them in War Savings Certificates or in company shares, he decides, without thinking of the Socialist party and their tax on land, that he would like to invest in a few cottages. He lives in one cottage and owns, perhaps, three or four others. Then this land tax comes along, and the land on which he lives is not worth more than £120, but, if the whole lot of the cottages which he owns are taken together, he finds that the amount of land which he owns, including the land occupied by the cottage in which he lives, amounts in value to more than £120. His neighbour, on the other hand, Jives in a house next door of the same size, the value of which is under £120. Does not the Committee think that it would seem extremely unfair to the person who lives in the cottage on land worth £120, and owns one or two other cottages next door, that he should have to pay the tax, not only on the other land which he owns, but also on the land which he himself occupies, which is exactly the same size as that which the man next door owns, but on which that neighbour does not have to pay anything at all? If there is going to be any principle, it should be that everybody has a perfect right to own £120 worth of land. If the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down is carried to its logical conclusion, then the Government can do nothing but accept the Amendment which has been moved from this side.

Captain GUNSTON: I am sorry that the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean
(Mr. Vaughan) is not now in his place as I wished to answer the very interesting claim made by him that he represented the poor. He made the remarkable statement that the Income Tax bears most heavily upon the poor; he seemed to forget that a man with £9 a week and two children does not pay any Income Tax at all.

Mr. KELLY: The hon. Member corrected that statement. In the first instance he used the words "Income Tax" but he corrected himself immediately, and he said that the poor paid, in taxation, more than any other section of the community.

Captain GUNSTON: The OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will prove which of us is right, but I certainly understood the hon. Member to say that the poor paid Income Tax. But what I am most interested in knowing is how the hon. Member will be able to go down to his constituency and say, as a man who represents the poor, "We have agreed to a resolution of the Liberal party which will let off from this taxation the landlords of Bond Street but is not going to let off the man owning land worth only £121 a year." I think the hon. Member would have considerable difficulty in staking out a claim in the Forest of Dean as the representative of the poor on that statement and I hope to be in his constituency in a very short time to point that out. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) how he is going to justify the proposition that a man owning property worth £125 a year should pay 10s. 6d. a year, while the man who owns property worth £120 a year should get off the tax altogether. That is the real issue.

Mr. SIMMONS: It would be easier to justify that, than to justify a man owning property worth £100,125 being exempted. You have to take the whole lot of exemptions together.

Captain GUNSTON: The proposition which we are putting forward can easily be justified on the present principle of Income Tax, and the flat rate which is applicable in that case to-day. Will hon. Members opposite go to their constituencies and say that the small property owner with a property of £120 a year is to get off, while the man with only £6 a year more is to pay. As I say, we shall gladly take up that challenge and I am looking forward to going down to the
Forest of Dean to point out that the hon. Member for that division has to-day agreed to letting off the landowners in Bond Street while he is not going to let off the people in his own division who own properties of £121 a year. We are told that God gave the land to the people, and to the chosen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not know if the railway companies are looked upon as being among the chosen. I think it is a new principle that people who own fully-developed property, judged by the Liberal standard, should be looked upon as "the chosen" to the extent of seven-eighths—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now anticipating a future discussion.

Captain GUNSTON: I only wish to point out that the rich landlord is to be let off by hon. Members opposite who claim to look after the poor people, and that those who own property of small value are going to be taxed by this Government.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to repeat the arguments which have been so forcibly put from this side of the Committee in favour of the Amendment, and indeed I should not have risen at all had it not been for a remark made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, I think, merits a little further examination. As to the Amendment, of course we are not making ourselves in any way responsible for the provision in the Bill to which this Amendment is offered. We do not consider that there should be any exemptions at all. But, accepting the view that the Government take, that there are to be exemptions, we desire that those exemptions should be made general and not confined to one class. Earlier in the Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) quoted some remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion which appeared to be inconsistent with the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman on this Bill.
What the right hon. Gentleman said here was that the Bill was an assertion of the right of the community to the land, and that anybody who had nominal possession of the land ought, therefore, to pay tribute to the community. Yet, in spite of that statement, he introduces a
provision which makes an exception, not in the case of people with little wealth, as so many hon. Members opposite mistakenly believe, but in the case merely of people who have no more than a particular amount of a particular kind of wealth. As my hon. Friend was speaking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, interrupting him, said that the speech from which he was quoting had been made on an occasion which had nothing to do with land values. This is not the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a somewhat unfortunate interruption. We recollect his remark about allotments which was subsequently shown by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to be the reverse of the facts. I have had put in my hands the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the speech quoted by my hon. Friend, and I find this heading to the Debate:

"CLAUSE 5.—(Remittance of Increment Value Duty payable by small investors.)"

and the first words of the Clause are:
Where the value from which deductions are made for the purpose of arriving at the site value of land on any occasion for the collection of increment value duty does not exceed £500." etc.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1913; col. 1003, Vol. 56.]

That shows quite clearly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken in saying that that speech was delivered on an occasion when land values were not in question. I do not know if the Solicitor-General will feel it necessary to defend his right hon. Friend on this occasion, but it is at any rate quite clear that the Chancellor is mistaken in his recollection; that, in fact, the occasion on which he made this speech was precisely parallel with the present occasion, and that the words which he used then are as applicable to this occasion as they were to that occasion. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say then? He said:
The First Lord of the Admiralty said we were beginning in these land taxes to adopt a new principle of British taxation, and that the tax gatherer was going to say not How much have you got?' but 'Where did you get it?' I think there is something to be said for that principle of taxation "—

Apparently the right hon. Gentleman still thinks so. He went on to say:
Now he proposes to abandon that principle altogether and he practically says that it is wrong for a rich man to take something
which is the creation of the community but it is not wrong for the poor man to do so. I remember when I was a lad at school a couplet which ran:
'It is a sin to steal a pin,
Much more to steal a greater thing.'
The morality which is now to be embodied in our taxation is even much more immoral than that couplet. What we are going to say is that it is not wrong for a man to steal from the community, provided his income is not more than £3 a week but the moment he gets beyond that point he is a thief."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1913; col. 1008, Vol. 56.]

These words express in better language than I can hope to command the sort of feeling that we have about the provision to which this Amendment is offered.

HON. MEMBERS: What date?

Mr. KELLY: Before the War—in 1913.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After the exhaustive discussion which we have had, I do not know if the President of the Board of Trade is going to offer any reply, but certainly we should have some further and better reasons than we have yet had as to why we should not accept this Amendment, if indeed he still maintains that position.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman has gone back into history to dig up a statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thinks had some relevance to this Debate. I am afraid the statement which he has just quoted has no relevance whatever. There are two points which make it wholly irrelevant. In the first place, the question then being discussed was not the taxation of land values but the question of Increment Value Duty, which is an entirely different subject, and depends upon completely different principles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members look at some of their speeches made at an earlier stage in this Debate they will see very good arguments which they themselves put forward to that effect. It was assented to on this side that the principles in this Bill were widely different from the 1909–10 legislation, and that it was no good arguing by analogy from one to the other. That has been said on every side of the Committee, and was said with great force by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). The second point is
that the exemption which was there being dealt with, as far as I can gather from the passage which the right hon. Gentleman read out, was an exemption on an income basis which, again, of course, is a completely different proposition from the present one.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Clause which was then under discussion begins with the words:
Where the value from which deductions are made for the purpose of arriving at the site value of land on any occasion does not exceed £500.
Therefore, it did refer to site values.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the hon. Member does not quite appreciate the point at issue here, otherwise I am sure he would not have made that interruption.

Sir JOHN SIMON: As the hon. and learned Gentleman understands the question so well, will he tell us whether it is his view that the increment tax in the Budget of 1909–10 was on an Income Tax basis?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I never suggested such a thing and I would be vary foolish if I had done so. The argument was on an entirely different point. As far as I caught the passage which was read out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) it was a statement to the effect that the question of the income of the persons who had to pay tax ought not to be the determining factor, I may have misunderstood it, and I have not seen the passage for myself, but I think there were words about it being wrong for a rich man to steal but not for a poor man. What I want to point out, however, is that this exemption here is not an exemption on the basis of the wealth of the individual exempted. It is not intended to be on that basis.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain that to his followers?

HON MEMBERS: We understand it!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am explaining it if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. The exemption is an exemption not upon the basis of the wealth of the persons, but upon the basis of the amount of land
and land value which they own. The reason, as has been explained several times, for the exemption is one of convenience. It will, in fact, probably result, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in a large number of people who own only one small property being exempted. That is the inevitable effect of it. The reason for it is the inconvenience of attempting to collect small sums of money. [Laughter.] Right hon. Gentleman opposite laugh, but I can assure them that it has been appreciated by a number of those who have spoken from those benches that that is a real difficulty, and they believe quite wrongly, that you can cure the difficulty just as well by making it a flat exemption of 10s. for everybody. That is a complete and absolute fallacy. You cannot in the least cure the trouble which we desire to cure if you make the exemption universal for all persons; that does not help you any more than the present position, because if everybody were entitled to get off the first 10s. of tax, you would get exactly the same position between 10s. and 20s. as you would have with the first 10s. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) agrees with me on that point. If it be right that this is a device in order to avoid the trouble and the expense of collecting small sums of money, then he will agree that this is the right way to do it.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What really costs the money is the valuation, not the collection.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the collection is not done for nothing.

Sir B. PETO: Will the Solicitor-General consider the point that he will have exactly the same number of items of tax to collect under my Amendment as under the Government's proposal, for he will be collecting all amounts above 10s. Where he would collect 15s. under the Government's proposal, he would collect 5s. under my Amendment, and other figures in proportion. Will he tell us how he makes out that the cost of collection will be so enormously increased when the number of items collected will be exactly the same?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Baronet will appreciate that when one talks about the cost of collection, one relates it to the subject matter collected. If you talked about the cost of collecting 100 different taxes of one penny each, you would say that the cost is out of proportion to anything you get from it, and the net result in the case of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is that, whereas under the present scheme it would be worth collecting 10s. 6d., it would not be worth collecting what that sum would become under his Amendment, that is, only 6d. That is why we have devised this scheme for cutting out the sixpences, but the hon. Baronet's suggestion will not only put them all back again, but deprive the revenue of a flat rate of 10s. from every owner in the country. One or two hon. Members opposite said that I did not mention what the financial results would be. I hesitated to point out anything so perfectly obvious to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you say that everybody who is an owner has not to pay 10s., the effect will be that we shall lose a great number of sums of 10s. It depends upon the number of owners. There will be more than 1,000,000, but taking it at only 1,000,000, we should lose £500,000.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What proportion is that of the total estimated revenue?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is a question which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would not have thought worth asking at this stage. Let me reply to one or two points put by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). He stated that if there were a 10s. deduction, it would not create any difficulties as regards assessment if it were made universal for every person, but, in putting forward that argument, he assumed that the 10s. deduction was to be made in the case of every unit. Of course, if 10s. deduction were made in the case of every unit, it would be a comparatively simple thing to do, because as the assessment was made out on every unit, 10s. would be taken off. In that event, taking the estimated number of 12,000,000 units, that would mean a substantial sum. If on the other hand, you had to aggregate all the units
in each ownership, and from that number took 10s. off, you would enter on a very difficult, complicated and expensive task. Therefore, that difficulty alone is enough to show that this Amendment would not assist either the revenue or anyone else.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) put forward an argument which seems to be the most complete fallacy. He said he wanted me to explain why, because we did not collect small sums from an owner, we thereupon charged him some 200 or 300 per cent. more. I do not quite understand what was his argument, but, as far as I can appreciate it, the hon. Member seems to think that those people who would normally pay 6d. on their valuation would be made to pay 10s. 6d. That is not the result of the Bill as it stands, and therefore I think he must be under some misapprehension. A great number of hon. Members have put forward the case of £121. That is an argument which can always be put forward wherever there is a limiting figure. Everybody above the limit will come in, and everybody below the limit will come out, and that is a necessity if you have a limited figure of any sort.
What hon. Members do not realise is that it is no disadvantage on the man with a valuation of £121 to pay his share of the taxation. It is an extra concession to the man under £121 not to pay his share of the taxation, but there is no hardship. [Laughter.] Really hon. Members seem very amused, but there is no hardship on one person if another person is exempt. I am surprised at the uncharitable mind of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston who laughs, and who thinks that everybody who is exempted gloats over the fact that other people have to bear the burden. As far as I can see, in this case, for the convenience of the collection of taxation the people under £121, to whatever class they belong and whatever the amount of money they may have, will simply, as a matter of practical expediency, be excluded from this tax, and that is not an exemption that can make anybody who has a unit of land over £121 complain.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: On this question of hardship, is it not a fact
that the owners assessed as £121 and upwards will pay more because of the exemption of other people?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, is under a fallacy there.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: We all are.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not say that all hon. Members opposite are in that position. This is a fixed amount of tax, and it will not make the slightest difference, because the exemptions will not put up the rate on the man who is above £120. If the hon. and learned Member means that there will be less yield from the tax, and that therefore the money will have to be found from some other source, that, of course, is true in every case. In this Bill, however, it will not make any difference, once you have a fixed incidence of tax, whether there is exemption or not, any more than the taking out of a charity will increase the tax on anybody else.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: After hearing that admirable exposition from the Solicitor-General on the true motives of the Government in putting on this tax, I rise only to point out two small items which he has omitted. He has told us that the whole motive of the Government in giving this exemption of 10s. is the expense of collection that it would involve. Of course, it was not for one moment because it meant that the owners of smaller dwellings would for a large part get off scot free! If the expense of collection is so great and so determining a factor, why is it that when it comes to recoupment from other people, which in many oases is done in quite small sums, the people from whom there is any recoupment and from whom the tax has to be collected are not to be excused? The expense of collection will be quite as great in their case, and probably greater. In England that is certainly true. In Scotland it is true for a very large number of cases. The Government will be collecting these small sums in cases where recoupment can be made, and if there be any consistency in Government policy, they will extend to them the exemption that they have given to those who pay the tax in the first instance. The other small point is this. The Solicitor-General convicts the Chancellor of the Exchequer of great
irrelevancy in his speeches. In his original speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that the working classes would largely get off scatheless. On a second occasion, when he introduced the Resolution on 4th May, he said:
As hon. Members opposite appear to be much interested in the matter, I will add the further information that this relief will relieve practically the whole of the dwellings owned by the working classes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 56, Vol. 252.]
Why introduce that irrelevancy? From the point of view of principle, he would have been sorry that such a chance effect should have been brought about by giving this 10s.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Who would have been sorry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been sorry. He regarded it as most undesirable 17 or 18 years ago. Ho said nothing to show that he does not regard it as undesirable to-day, and if that is not the object of the Government, why should he introduce this irrelevancy on more than one occasion? I am sure that a more disingenuous explanation has rarely been offered to the House of Commons.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point that there is no question under the recoupment Clauses of the tax being collected from anyone but the owner. The tax is always collected from the owner. There is no question of collecting the tax from the reversioner.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does not that just point exactly to the case that has been made from this side, that the cost of the collection will be the same in all these cases?

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: I have listened to the Solicitor-General speaking twice, and to innumerable other Members, but I have not heard a single argument against this most reasonable Amendment, and if the Government desire a number of us on these benches to support them against this Amendment, they will have to produce some much stronger arguments than we have had so far. I agree with the Solicitor-General that for the sake of convenience we should exempt people
whose tax would not amount to more than 10s., but if for the sake of convenience we exempt them, then, for the sake of justice, we must make an abatement to others, and justice is not to be ruled out simply because of inconvenience. Wherever there is an abatement or a limitation it must be general, otherwise we are bound to get grave injustice in the border-line cases, and such cases are not a mere figment of the imagination. Let us consider how this will affect new housing estates, where there are a number of small owner-occupiers, with exactly similar houses on exactly similar plots. The ordinary plot may be worth £120, but next to that may be another plot of exactly the same size and with exactly the same type of house upon it which happens to be a corner plot with a road frontage on two sides. Anyone who knows anything about land values knows that simply because it is a corner plot its land value will be higher than that of the adjoining plot—it may be £180. The man who occupies the corner plot is at present labouring under a tremendous injustice because of the oppressive charges made for street paving in those two roads. I know a man at present who has had to find £390 for street paving alone—almost the value of the house itself; and now we are going to tax that man while giving a complete abatement to the man next door with an exactly similar house on an exactly similar plot. That is totally and utterly unjust. It is the kind of injustice which always arises when we make these limitations and abatements without making them general. I beg the Government to reconsider their position, not only in the interests of convenience but, what is more, of justice.

Mr. BENSON: There is something to be said for this Amendment—if it is carried far enough. The position is that the first 10s. is not being collected because it is not worth while to collect it. The Amendment asks that an abatement should be given to every other payer of tax, but the Solicitor-General has pointed out that that would leave a number of remnants of tax to be collected—sums of 6d. and 1s. where the tax had amounted to 10s. 6d. or 11s. It is quite obvious that the next step would be to give another abatement of 10s.—not to collect the next 10s.; and in equity there would have to be a further abatement of
10s. and we should get the same trouble all over again—still get remnants of 6d. or 1s. to be collected. We could go on adding abatements and limitations, and in a short time the Government would be in the position of owing money to every owner of property instead of the owner of property owing it to the Government.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The excellent speech we have had from the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) was an interesting contrast with the extraordinary confusion which the Solicitor-General found himself in when he was interrupted by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). It was clear that his mind was in a state of confusion between income and increment duty. He was pulled up and corrected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not corrected!"] At any rate he was not very clear on the point. May I ask him another question, which is not a very difficult one? Supposing there are two individuals, a man and a woman, each owning land worth £100. Under the Bill as it stands they will both get exemption from this tax, just as they are exempt from Income Tax with incomes of £100 each if they are not married, but, if they marry, become liable to Income Tax because the total of the joint income would be above the Income Tax limit. What I wish to know is whether the two units of land belonging to two married people which singly are below the limit at which this tax is imposed are to be added together for taxation purposes under this Bill?
I think the proposal of the Amendment is better than the scheme in the Bill, because if once we grant exemptions they ought to be based on principle and not regulated by considerations of the difficulty of collecting the tax. There cannot be any real difficulty in collecting 5s. or 6s. The cost of collection will be very small in proportion to the cost of making the estimate of the value of the land unit. That is where the real cost lies. Once that has been done the value is registered, and then the tax can be collected. Whether the tax is 5s. or 10s. makes very little difference to the cost of collection; it is only a question of sending a notification. It is a pity the Government have not put up the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us
what these exemptions will actually cost. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it will depend on how many units of land there are. Obviously, the Government will have made some estimate; if they have not, they are taking a novel course in proposing a new tax without having worked out its incidence or what its yield is likely to be. I will support the Amendment because it will make the Bill slightly less bad than it is.

Mr. E. BROWN: I had hoped we should have a reply from the Government Bench in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver). The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) presented an analogy which, I think, is quite fallacious. In the case of the Income Tax there is a flat rate of tax and a flat rate of abatement, and surely the abatement should also apply all round in the case of this tax. I cannot think why the Solicitor-General should pretend, in his specious way, that it is merely an arbitrary line which the Government have drawn. The point is not that it is merely an arbitrary line but that there is an arbitrary distinction between one particular taxpayer and another, and since there is to be an abatement of a uniform sum surely there is great force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley that the abatement should apply all round in the case of those to whom the tax is chargeable.

Mr. MacLAREN: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) upon his speech this afternoon, because I have seldom heard the case for the justice of an imposition of this kind put more clearly than he put it. When he came to deal with the Amendment, however, he seemed to depart from that clarity. The clear gospel would tolerate no exemptions whatever: whether a man were rich or poor, he would contribute to the State in proportion to the land values he had under his control; but I want to ask the Opposition why there should be all this protest against this exemption?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no protest against this exemption.

Mr. MacLAREN: Then the protest is that the exemption is not going far
enough, that the exemption up to the amount of 10s. should be extended to every rich and poor landowner alike. The protest is that a distinction is being made between what is termed the poor man and the rather wealthier man. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I want to find out what is in the minds of the Opposition and I am going through the process of winnowing it to ascertain, exactly what they do want. Then the objection to the exemption is that the Government are bringing it in to save poor people from having to contribute towards the tax. So far as I have been able to gather, the protest is that the Government are making a distinction between the wealthier people and the poorer people.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The objection is that the millionaire who happens to have land to the value of only £119 pays nothing, and another man with land worth £121 has to pay 10s. 1d.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I will assume the picture of the millionaire who owns only a cabbage plot! In the Debate this afternoon the main burden of the criticism against the Government has been that by this exemption they are trying to gain votes from the poorer sections of the community. Surely that has been reiterated time and time again. It has been said that by this exemption the Government are resorting to a form of bribery to capture votes in the country, and that has been the main part of the argument. Why should the House of Commons become indignant about an exemption in favour of getting votes? As long as I have known anything about the canons of taxation in this House it has consistently gone along that line. Take, for example, right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Do they wish to tell me that for the seven years I have been in this House the same thing has not been going on? Surely they will not deny that the same thing went on under the De-rating Bill? Time and time again politicians have resorted to this process of capturing votes outside by making remissions of taxation. If that is so, why all the hypocrisy we have had this afternoon?
If the Labour Government say they are making this exemption because they
are having regard to the poorer sections of the community, and if in turn they are charged with resorting to a form of bribery it would not disturb me in the least, because all parties have been guilty of that crime, if it is a crime. I think the Solicitor-General's argument stands unchallenged when he says that the cost of collection of a small sum of this kind would be a mere bagatelle. A vast number of the people who own a email amount of land are living under different economic circumstances than they have ever lived under before. The economic pressure is such that it would be far better to give them exemption than resort to the other methods which Parliament has had to pursue of reverting to heavy taxation in order to hand out doles to the poor. I cannot understand the righteous indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite if they think that they have discovered some form of favours being granted to certain sections of the community. I cannot understand that indignation in face of their own record.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I wish to deal with the point of the inconvenience alleged in regard to the collection of this particular tax. I think the Solicitor-General, in making that statement, did what he has been doing in most of his explanations in regard to this Bill, and that is ignoring the practical considerations which apply to this particular matter. I would like to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the fact that it is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that it is no inconvenience to the Inland Revenue to collect small sums by way of the present Land Tax, because in some instances they collect sums as small as 3d. That is well known. When the Solicitor-General bears that in mind, perhaps he will be able to give a different explanation from that which he gave in his reply this afternoon.

With regard to the inconvenience of collection, surely the Solicitor-General will have in mind that what is applicable to other forms of taxation can be applied in this particular case. I think the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) showed an entire ignorance of what is proposed by this Amendment, the object of which is to make the application of the tax more fair. One of our principles is to arrange things for the general convenience of the community, and not give any advantage to one section over the other. In view of the desire of the Committee to divide on this Amendment, perhaps it would be well to leave further discussion of this question to another occasion.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he could give any estimate of the loss involved if this Amendment were carried. The Amendment seems a very simple one, and it is a simple idea.

Mr. MacLAREN: Schedule A taxation is not as simple as Land Values Taxation.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: A discussion on Schedule A taxation would be out of order. It is a very simple idea that, irrespective of a man's politics, his wealth, or anything else, he must have a general exemption, and I hope the Government will not stick to their inverted means test. They are perpetuating a means test in this Clause, and I hope they will give some indication of the cost of this concession. If it is a small cost, I hope that the Government will accede to the opinion which has been expressed in every quarter of the Committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 244.

Division No. 312.]
AYES.
[6.9 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barr, James
Bromfield, William


Adamson, W. M. (Stan., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brooke, W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brothers, M.


Alaxander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Ammon, Charles George
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Angell, Sir Norman
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgess, F. G.


Arnott, John
Bondfied, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowen, J. W.
Calne, Derwent Hall-


Ayles, Walter
Bowerman, At. Hon. Charles W.
Cameron, A. G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Brockway, A. Fenner
Chater, Daniel


Church, Major A. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Raynes, W. R.


Clarke, J. S.
Kinley, J.
Richards, R.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Knight, Holford
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ritson, J.


Cove, William G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Romerll, H. G.


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dallas, George
Lawrence, Susan
Rowson, Guy


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sandham, E.


Devlin, Joseph
Lees, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leonard, W.
Scott, James


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, Sir James


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sherwood, G. H.


Edge, Sir William
Logan, David Gilbert
Shield, George William


Edmunds, J. E.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shlliaker, J. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Egan, W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Eimley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McElwce, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettletton)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Strauss, G. R.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Sullivan, J.


Gray, M liner
Mansfield, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George
Tillett, Ben


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James
Tout, W. J.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Middleton, G.
Turner, Sir Ben


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, David


Harbord, A.
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Montague, Frederick
Walkden, A. G.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Morley, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muff, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh
West, F. R.


Herrlotts, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Hicks, Ernest George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, H. G.


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N,)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hollins, A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Willams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jenkins, Sir William
Palmer, E. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jones, Liewellyn-, F.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wise, E. F.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pole, Major D. G.



Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.



Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilton





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O, (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
O'Connor, T. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Fielden, E. B.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
O'Neill, Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Viscountess
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Baillie-Hamliton. Hon. Charles W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Pybus, Percy John


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Remer, John R.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bird, Ernest Roy
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blinded, James
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ross, Ronald D.


Boyce, Leslie
Hanbury, C.
Rothschild, J. de


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butler, R. A.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Simms, Major-General J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sketlon, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Christie, J. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Colman, N. C. D.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Thompson, Luke


Colville, Major D. J.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Train, J.


Cowan, D. M.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Turton, Rohert Hugh


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morqan, Sir Kenyon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Millar, J. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


England, Colonel A.
Muirhead, A. J.
Captain Margesson and Sir George Penny.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Nathan, Major H. L.



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 21, line 14, to leave out the words "as to recovery of tax by mortgagees."
The effect of this Amendment and of the next Amendment—In line 15, after the word "lessors," to insert the words "as to tax paid by mortgagees being charged on the mortgaged estate "—will be that this provision in Clause 20 will be stated in exactly similar words to chose of the previous provision in Clause 16.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 15, after the word "lessors," insert the words:
as to tax paid by mortgagees being charged on the mortgaged estates."—[The Solicitor-Oeneral.]

Major MUIRHEAD: I beg to move, in page 21, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) If any person chargeable with tax in respect of a unit proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the value of the unit is less than the value as ascertained under the provisions of Section eight, by reason of the fact that a Resolution has been passed under any Act relating to town or country planning for the preparation or adoption of a scheme of development by which there would be, when the scheme comes into operation, a restriction on the user of the unit, he shall be entitled to relief from the tax proportionate to the diminution so caused in the value of the unit.
I move this Amendment because I am not certain whether the provisions of the First Schedule with regard to restrictions on user cover the case of land to which a resolution to apply a town planning scheme applies. Paragraph (1, g) relates to:
Restrictions on user which have become operative imposed by or in pursuance of any Act or by any agreement.
As the Committee will be aware, a town and country planning scheme is divided into three stages. There is the approved scheme, which is the final stage, where the provisions are set down in detail, so that their application is exactly known. There is the earlier stage of the preliminary statement, where a fair amount of detail is indicated, although the details have not yet the full force of the final approved scheme; while in the first stage the area of country covered by the resolution is indicated, but the actual provisions of the resolution,
and the actual restrictions which it may impose, are of a very nebulous and indeterminate character.
The restrictions under the first resolution have one peculiar characteristic. They are not actual restrictions in the sense that certain things are forbidden. What happens is that, if an owner wishes to build a house, he has to apply to the town planning authority, and the town planning authority can refuse to give him leave, but that does not actually stop him from building the house; it merely means that, when the scheme, perhaps 15 years later, comes to fruition, the house may be pulled down without any compensation being given him. It is not at all certain whether the house will be pulled down; it may be allowed to stand; but there will always be that threat hanging over the owner, if he has built on that particular piece of land without first getting leave, that several years afterwards he may have to pull down the house without getting any compensation for it. I am not quite certain whether that particular kind of restriction is covered by the First Schedule to this Bill.
I agree that it is very difficult to decide, in the early stages of a resolution as to the exact extent of the restrictions which are put upon a particular piece of land, because, until the owner asks for permission to build, it might be argued that no very definite restriction is put upon him; and it might even be argued that, if he had asked permission and it had been refused, the restriction was then only partial, because he could put up his house, and would merely be under the threat of having it removed at some future date. Undoubtedly, however, the restriction is a very real one. There is no doubt that the selling value of land covered by a resolution would be less unless it was very clearly determined whether a man might build upon the land or not, and it is with the object of clearing up the situation that I move this Amendment. I had hoped that both this Amendment and the next Amendment which stands in my name—In page 21, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
Where at any time between the valuation date and the next subsequent valuation date in respect of a unit which is included in the scope of a development scheme, made under any Act relating to town or country planning, the value of such unit is
diminished by reason of the operation of such scheme, the owner thereof shall be entitled to a rebate of the tax paid by him in proportion to such diminution of the value."—
might have been considered as complementary. Although they do not cover exactly the same point, they deal to all intents and purposes with the same set of circumstances, but I am not quite certain whether it would be in, order to move the second Amendment or not. A valuer will be placed in this difficulty, that, when he comes to value land which is covered by a first resoluton, he will not know the exact extent of the restrictions imposed on the land, and he will not know the exact amount of consideration to give to those restrictions. The object of my Amendment is that he should certainly give some consideration to the restrictions, and as much consideration as it is possible for him to give. I feel that that consideration should be given in the sense most favourable to the owner, that is to say, in the sense that a general restriction does exist—that it is quite possible for the owner to be prohibited from building, or only to be allowed to build under the threat that he will get no compensation—and, even although the land is only covered by a first resolution, and there is no preliminary statement or final scheme, the valuer should take into consideration the restrictions from the point of view most favourable to the owner.
I do not know if I am in order in referring now to my second Amendment, but the two seem to me to hang together. The second Amendment would enable a valuer and an owner to adjust any discrepancy which might occur between the value which the valuer originally placed on the land and the value which actually attaches to the land after the owner has applied for permission to build and has been refused. I should be grateful if I could have a clear understanding from the Government as to whether restrictions imposed by a first resolution are considered to be adequately covered by the First Schedule, or whether this Amendment is required to cover them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer to the questions of the hon. and gallant Member is that the resolution itself would not impose a restriction. He himself suggested that it was doubtful whether there would be any actual
restriction under the resolution, and I think the answer is that there would not be any actual restriction, coming in as an incumbrance on the land, under a mere town planning resolution. The difficulty of doing anything in this matter is shown by the form of the Amendment. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at his own Amendment, he will see that he is asking someone to take into account, at the time when a resolution is passed, the case in which,
by reason of the fact that a resolution has been passed under any Act relating to town or country planning for the preparation or adoption of a scheme of development by which there would be, when the scheme comes into operation, a restriction on the user of the unit.
Valuers may be prophetic in some ways, but it is very difficult for them to prophesy what is going to be contained in a town planning scheme which is not in existence, and it is really because of that uncertainty, which exists at the time when the resolution is passed, that it is impossible to say that any actual piece of property within a town planning area is subject to any restriction. It is merely subject to the general necessity, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, of getting permission to develop. That permission is hedged round with various statutory provisions as regards contributions, compensation, appeals to the Minister and so on. The real remedy as regards any restriction that is put upon land is that there are means under the Town and Country Planning Bill by which to adjust the rights of the party who is unduly or improperly restricted by the general resolution. The selling price of all land in every area is not made less by the mere passing of the resolution. It would only be in some very special case, or where the scheme under the resolution had gone a long way towards becoming actually a scheme, that that could ever arise, or upon the refusal of a local authority to allow development in a particular area.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have listened with great interest to what the Solicitor-General has said, but it does not seem to me that he has quite answered the question or realised the justice behind the Amendment. It only seeks to bring the Bill into harmony with the Town and Country Planning Bill. It is a very unfortunate situation in which
we are placed that the two Bills should be running at the same time, because no one knows where he stands with regard to either of them. As far as it can be done, we ought to try to harmonise the schemes as they go through the House. It is obvious that, under town planning schemes, enormous tracts of country are going to be planned. That will take a considerable time to do. I have taken part in an enormous amount of negotiations between local authorities and private individuals, and it takes many weeks and months to carry them through. Simultaneously with these negotiations there will be running the assessments for this Finance Bill, and it is very likely that the assessment will be carried through before the town planning scheme is published. It is very likely that the assessor under the Finance Act may say that a piece of land will be suitable for development of six or eight houses to the acre and, later on, when the town planning scheme comes out, it is limited to four, or even treated as an open space. That situation might easily arise, and it it obvious that the assessment would have been too high for the Land Tax. The owner would be required to pay too much, and there ought to be some machinery by which that can be adjusted. The owner would be suffering immensely if the value of his land was reduced in the interim period. It is all very well to say it will not happen in very many cases. We do not want it to happen in any cases. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): The next Amendment that I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan).

Major MUIRHEAD: May I ask why my Amendment is not being called?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not selected.

Major MUIRHEAD: Might I be allowed to state the reasons why I consider it should be selected?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to move, in page 21, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) If the owner of a land unit in respect of which a tax for any year has been charged proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the land unit has been or is being used during that year solely for agricultural purposes, or for purposes of allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1926, he shall be entitled to relief from the tax for that year.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, even although land has been valued for the purposes of the tax in any year, as long as it is used solely for agricultural purposes during that year, tax shall not be chargeable. If the Government are not favourable to the Amendment and we press it to a Division and it is carried—in view of what happened yesterday a not altogether fantastic assumption—I hope the Prime Minister will not say it is merely a drafting Amendment. I think the Committee will agree that it has more substance in it than a mere drafting Amendment. It concerns, incidentally, a section of the community which, I think, should certainly have the favourable consideration of the Government. I am championing the case of small allotment holders. There is an impression very widely spread outside the House that agricultural land is going to be exempt and, although we now know that that is to a large extent a false impression, it is due in a large measure to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his introductory remarks some weeks ago. I am sure it is the intention of the Government to include in the exemptions all bona fide agricultural land. We on this side are as anxious as the Government that we should not open the door to evasion of the tax.
I rather believe the Solicitor-General may reply that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would provide opportunities for unscrupulous persons to obtain immunity by some subterfuge which would bring land which was not strictly agricultural within the exemption Clause. There is probably some substance in that objection, but surely it cannot pass the ingenuity of the Solicitor-General to accept the principle of the Amendment and at the same time obviate the undesirable result of anyone obtaining exemption under false pretences. I think the smallholders and allotment holders form a section of the community which is thoroughly deserving of our support and consideration. We generally measure
favourable consideration by the amount of votes involved in any particular proposal. Do allotment holders come within the interpretation of the phrase "The people"? Are they the working classes in the interpretation of the Government? If the Amendment were carried, it would be a great relief to a very large number who at present think they are facing ruin if the Measure is placed upon the Statute Book.

Mr. J. JONES: May I ask if it is possible for me to put down a Motion for another crisis to-morrow?

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's appeal. Broadly speaking, the principle of the exemption of agricultural land has been discussed on a previous Amendment. On this Amendment we approach it from a slightly different angle. The appeal, however, is the same in both cases and it is to protect cases which, though probably not numerous, will undoubtedly suffer great hardship. I should like to bring to the attention of the Solicitor-General some cases which have recently come under my notice in Somerset. They are specifically covered by the terms of the Amendment with regard to agricultural land, and the question of smallholdings and allotments. This is a question of land, not in expanding urban areas, but right in the heart of the village. I know of a village in which a certain rather public-spirited individual acquired an area of land in complete juxtaposition to the village in order to provide some of the cottages, whose gardens were limited in size, with allotments. He divided the land into allotments. They adjoined the village and are by the side of a good tarmac second-class road. He lets them at a rent based on the purchase price of the land. There must be a development value, because if the village is to expand at all, that area is the obvious place where cottages will be erected. It is there that a tax will pretty surely be placed upon the land by the valuers. We cannot know, nor can the learned Solicitor-General know, what the valuer is going to say under the terms of the Act, but, as I read the Bill, it is almost certain cultivation value will be placed upon such an area. If that should be the case, the rental of every allotment holder will have to be put up,
because the present rental has been cut down to the absolute minimum so as to give the allotment holder the full benefit. This is not the only example even in my solitary experience in the West. The question arises in many small villages.
We know that there have been certain developments with regard to house building in this country, and that matters have slowed down of late. There has been a development in the countryside of the building of council cottages, not all of which are for the purpose of housing the agricultural workers. I know of several cases in Somerset villages where application has been made and approval given for the erection of, say, eight or 12 council cottages. Those cottages are very often occupied by those who do not find work in the village, but are engaged elsewhere. Before the decision is made as to the area where council cottages are to be erected, all the agricultural land in the vicinity of a particular village is a potential site for the cottages, and therefore has a site value. The moment a decision is made, and site A is chosen in preference to B, C, D or E and the cottages are put up, it may be true to say that there is no new site value on the rest of the land, because there is no immediate prospect of additional council houses being put up, and no one except public authorities will be likely to build there. Under a situation like that, immediately a decision has been made in one particular place, there will be no building value or additional site value upon the other additional pieces of land. Before such a decision is made all have a potential value. Cases like that will be covered if the Government accept the Amendment.
As long as those areas are actually being used for agricultural purposes they are exempt from the tax, although there is some kind of potential building value. The moment the local authority decides the area to be used, there is obviously a site value. I submit that those are very adequate reasons why the Solicitor-General should accept the Amendment. He speaks of people trying to wangle the Act and pretending an area is being used for agricultural purposes in order to avoid the payment of the land tax. My opinion of the learned Solicitor-General is such that I believe he can devise means for checking that
sort of thing. If he does not accept an Amendment such as this he will not be able to devise means for avoiding the very serious unfairness which is liable to operate on a much larger scale than he contemplates.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I support the Amendment on the ground that we ought to exempt agricultural land and allotments from the tax during the time the land is being used for such purposes. It might be said that the land is ripening for development, but it cannot be contended that during the period when it is actually being used for agricultural purposes or for allotments that it has completely ripened. The very fact that the owner of the land had not received any increased benefit up to that time would exempt him, for, as long as the land was used for agricultural purposes or allotments, he would not have received any increased emoluments in respect of the land. I object emphatically to taxation during the period of ripening. I can give an analogy to show that I am just in making this contention. With the exception of the Law Officers who are now sitting on the Government Front Bench, almost every Member opposite has sat in the House during a period of Opposition, and doubtless during that time there was in their minds the possibility, and the hope probably, of accepting office at some future date. And no doubt when they accepted office they would expect the emoluments due in respect of the office. Those emoluments were ripening during that period. Although Members in office are now paying Income Tax upon their emoluments, would they have considered it just, if, during the whole period they were in opposition, they had been called upon to pay Income Tax upon emoluments that were said to be ripening? I consider that that is a complete argument against the unmoral act of trying to place a tax upon something during the period of its ripening.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I wish to support the Amendment. It is well known that the general level of agricultural wages in rural parts of the country is lower than that ruling ordinarily in urban occupations and in the industries of the towns. The agricultural worker, therefore, starts at a disadvantage in regard to his wage level,
but against that he enjoys one or two advantages which do a little to narrow the gap between the wages he receives and those received by his counterpart who works in the towns. The agricultural worker in general is able to house himself at a lower rent than the man who lives and works in the towns. The second slight advantage that he gains is the fact that, either attached to the cottage which he hires there is a garden, or, failing that, he is often able to hire, at a very reasonable rent, a piece of allotment ground. That advantage is now in part to be taken from him because there is no doubt that the proposed new penal tax upon land, including allotment ground, is going to be very detrimental in the long run to the production of allotments. We have, on the one hand, the Government introducing a land utilisation Bill, a large portion of which is devoted to the greater provision of allotments, and a few weeks later we have a Finance Bill introduced which deliberately puts a new penal burden upon allotment ground, and must in the long run tend to reduce facilities for allotments generally. It is an amazing spectacle that a Socialist Government, who call themselves a Labour Government, should be capable of doing anything which can worsen, as this undoubtedly will, the position of the agricultural labourer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his speech a short time ago that one of the benefits of this new burden of tax on land would be that it would force land into the market and also make it cheaper. If his contention is true that land would be more readily brought into the market as a result of this particular tax, it will, of course, apply to allotment ground as well as to all other ground. The owner of allotment ground will say, "I have a new burden of taxation to pay every year, and I find it impossible to ask allotment holders to pay a higher rent, and, therefore, the best thing for me to do, is to sell the allotment ground for building purposes." Allotment ground generally is rather a choice spot on the edge of a village and is usually situated on a road for the sake of convenience, and if the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, such ground will now be offered for sale for building purposes,
and will no longer be available for allotment holders. In this way the Government are directly discouraging the provision of land for allotments, and yet, on the other hand, in another of their Bills at present on the stocks, they are pretending that they have great anxiety for the extension of allotment holdings. We are in the midst of the greatest agricultural depression which has ever existed in this country. This is the moment which has been chosen by the Socialist Government to place a new and heavy burden upon the shoulders of industry and agriculture generally. I should have thought that any Government, whatever its political complexion, would have borne in mind the fact that our favourable trade balance has vanished, and that we are now faced with an adverse trade balance.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine his remarks to the objects of the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: If I may be allowed to add only one sentence, I think that I can show that this point is very closely allied to my argument. Nothing should be done at this moment to discourage production. Every basket full of vegetables we can grow on our own allotments means one basket full of vegetables less to be imported from some foreign country. That will help to correct, in however small a way, our adverse trade balance. My argument is that nothing should be done which would tend to discourage agricultural production, not only in the interests of agriculture, but in the wider national interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bases this tax on his dislike for the landlords, but, of the agricultural land of this country, no less than 36 per cent. is owner occupied. Does he realise how fast the old class of landlord, for whom he has such contempt, is disappearing? Does he realise he is going to hit a very large class of owner occupiers by this new penal device? Where does he think the money is to come from to pay this new tax on agricultural land? It already pays under Schedule A and, if there is a profit, under Schedule B. Those taxes purport to come from profits, but this tax—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is asking in his Amendment for relief for special purposes and he ought to keep to that point.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: May I submit that the Amendment asks that, when a unit is used for agricultural purposes, that land should be exempt. I have confined myself to that point to the best of my ability.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot, on this Amendment, have a discussion on Schedule A and on Schedule B.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I shall leave the question of the Schedules, and repeat my question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where does he think this money is coming from? It is a hypothetical sum coming from a hypothetical value which may never be realised. I can only come to the conclusion that the present Government, bankrupt in ideas and unable to keep their pledges to make farming pay, wish to make the whole agricultural industry bankrupt with it.

Mr. WISE: I suggest that this Amendment has been drawn so as to cover both agricultural purposes and allotments, in the hope that the second purpose may cover the first. Most of the arguments have been directed to agricultural purposes. I can well understand the Government may be prepared to consider the exemption of land for allotment purposes, whereas to exempt all land used for agricultural purposes in this manner would completely upset the scheme. I cannot support the Amendment, because this is not a proper way to deal with agricultural land, but I would appeal to the Solicitor-General with regard to land used for allotment purposes. In another Bill before the House, all parties have agreed that it is very desirable to encourage allotments, and have given special facilities for their extension and their easy and cheap provision. That particular purpose is even accepted in another place. It would, therefore, be very undesirable if, while that Bill were going through, anything, however small, was done to discourage or to put an additional charge on allotments. Of the 750,000 allotments, which are at present under cultivation in this country, a considerable proportion will already be exempt under the Bill. About 200,000 of
them are owned by local authorities and will not be taxed, while of the remainder a proportion are owned by societies under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and a considerable number of those societies would be regarded as charities, and would not be taxed in respect of their land under the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night.
We are left then with the case of allotments, numbering perhaps 250,000, a minority of the whole, which are run and managed by allotment associations who hire them from private individuals. I hope the Government will be able—if not this evening at any rate at a later stage—to give some consideration to those cases. They cover land, mostly in the vicinity of great towns and villages, which has a considerable site value. I do not suggest that the owner of the land should be exempt from paying site value to some extent. I do not know if I would be in order in referring the Solicitor-General to an Amendment on page 2038, which was not called, but I would suggest that, while there may be no case for exempting owners of land which has a high building value and which is temporarily, pending development, let to an allotment association, there is a case for encouraging owners, whose land at present is not in use and may not be required for building for a period of years, to let the land to an allotment association by giving them some exemption in regard to that portion of the tax which might be regarded as being covered by the cultivation value, leaving the owner assessable to tax in respect of the value of the land above the cultivation value. That will put the land on all fours with land owned by the local authorities or the allotment associations. It would prevent this tax putting an additional charge on allotment associations at the present moment, and would encourage owners, who have land close to working class districts to let it temporarily pending development on reasonably cheap terms to allotment associations. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to give consideration to this substantial point, which will carry out the main purpose of the Bill of bringing land into use, and will also achieve the purpose of the Government in their other Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No one will be unmindful of the case of allotment holders or will seek to put anything in the way of an increase in the number of allotments in this country. If I may first deal with the point as to village allotments, no question can possibly arise under this Bill as regards rural allotments. There never will be a case where the difference between the allotment value and the building value will exceed £120, or there might be one case in a thousand, and hon. Members who suggest such cases do not realise that it is a false criterion of the valuation to suggest that the valuer will come round and say, "This site might be a site for six cottages, and I put that value upon it." The whole of the land round the village is considered as available for building unless there is some restriction on it. The usual demand in the village is one house a year, and one presumes that amount of land will be taken up annually. One does not assume that one particular site is to be the site to be taken. I have had recent experience of this, because a local authority made a valuation of a piece of land of mine which they purchased for cottages, and the valuation does not come out at much more than the agricultural value, although it is right in the middle of the village. The idea that in rural districts these high figures of £200 or £300 an acre are quite common is fallacious. Occasionally such a price is paid where an owner will not part with his land. It will be very rare where the difference between the cultivation value and the building value will be anything considerable.
With regard to the districts round towns, where the building value is in excess of the cultivation value in some cases, that position is a very difficult one. The hon. Member behind me has stated accurately the cases already dealt with under the Bill. There remains the vacant land hired for allotments pending developments. The difficulty in that case is that, if one exempts such land as that, everyone having land of a high value will immediately use that land in that way, and there will be no developing land near towns which is used for anything else, even though it is only scratched with a rake once a year. On the other hand, the present Bill will induce owners to let
it for allotments, because the alternative to letting it for allotments is to let it for grazing or to leave it without getting any receipts from it at all. If it used for allotments, it becomes agricultural land used for agricultural purposes, and probably the best cultivation value that can be obtained for it will be allotment value. Therefore, a higher deduction from the land value will be obtained if it is used for allotments. The owner will, therefore, be doing the best for his own pocket if he has land, which is not ready to be built upon but which is getting ready to be built upon, if be uses it for allotments. The position at the moment under the Bill is the most favourable position possible for allotment holders. They will not suffer in the least by reason of this.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I have in mind a piece of land in my constituency which is let as allotments. It may be that the land may be developed, but circumstances are not very propitious at the moment. The Solicitor-General says that the owner of that land will make the best use of it meanwhile by leting it as allotments. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to realise that under the Bill as it stands the advantage which the owner will get will be very slight. There is a further point of importance which the Solicitor-General knows, and I have only to remind him of it, and that is that, for practical purposes, the land is no use for allotments unless you can ensure that it will be let for allotments for at least three or four years. Take a case where the land is practically or very nearly ripe for development, although it is extremely useful for allotments, because it is near the middle of a town. I do not know whether I am saying something that is stupid. If the Solicitor-General wants to interrupt me, let him do so. I think I am putting a perfectly sound point. Unless the landowner is going to get a substantial advantage, he will not be debarred from keeping the land idle by the slight exemption that he will get under the Bill as it stands, but he will be quite prepared to bind himself to keep the land as allotment land and not to develop it for a period of, say, 10 years, if he got the full advantage of being free from the tax. Otherwise, he will say to himself that it is not worth his while to let it for allotments.

Sir B. PETO: We welcome any support from hon. Members opposite, and I welcome the support of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). The Solicitor-General devoted practically the whole of his speech to answering, but it was not a complete answer, the hon. Member for East Leicester. The hon. Member's support of the Amendment was rather divided. He said that he did not support the exemption of land so long as it was used for agricultural purposes, but only if it was used for the: special purpose of allotments. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the broader question of land used for agricultural purposes which, so long as it is so used, this Amendment proposes to exempt from Land Tax. Let us get down to the fundamental question of what is the purpose of the Land Tax. Clearly the object of the Government is to force land as rapidly as possible into full development for building. Anyone who goes from the centre of London and sees what is happening in any direction, particularly in the southerly direction, which I have in mind, will notice large areas of land which are being developed and covered with houses, and other areas where customary farming operations are going on, generally of the dairying kind. Whether the land is ripe and is being covered with buildings, or whether it continues to be used for producing food nearest to the people, and producing most valuable supplies of milk and other things of that kind, it is equally being used for the benefit of the community.
When we consider the operation of the tax I cannot believe that the exemption from a land tax of 1d. annually charged upon the capital site value of the land is going to have any great weight with the owner of land which is practically ripe for development. What is to happen if he hands it over to the speculative builder? The speculative builder is at once charged with an annual tax upon the land, but the man who has held the land perhaps for 20 years while it has grown enormously in value escapes entirely. I do not believe that the vendor of land for building purposes will be materially affected, whether we have this exemption or not, but what I do say is that if we impose the tax upon land fully used for, its customary agricultural purposes, as it has been in the past, and used for the benefit of the community,
the effect will be that the farmer who is occupying and using that land will in nine cases out of ten be charged with a higher rent for the land in proportion to the incidence of this land tax. That will increase the cost of the production of food upon that land and it will be an additional handicap to the industry of agriculture, although it will not affect to any material extent the profits of the landlord, at whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get. Such a tax on agricultural land would he disastrous. We have only to look at what is going to happen if we artificially try to force, slightly in advance of natural building development, more and more land into a position in which it will be spoiled for agricultural purposes by being cut up and covered with sign boards stating that it is eligible building land.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going very wide of the Amendment.

Sir B. PETO: I will endeavour to keep very close to it. I do not believe that it will be of any benefit that land should be taken from its use and kept waiting by a process of premature development in the hope that building will follow. I believe that the Amendment would be a means of promoting the ordinary development of land in the neighbourhood of big towns and would secure the best possible use of the land, namely, for agricultural purposes, until it is actually needed for building purposes. That being so, I am convinced, without interfering to any material extent with the revenue that is some day going to be collected from this tax, that it will be in the interests of the community as a whole when land is properly used for the valuable purpose of producing food that it should be exempt from any additional tax. No additional tax should be placed or should be proposed to be placed at the present time upon any agricultural land and, above all, upon agricultural land in the immediate neighbourhood of our towns. For that reason, I hold that the arguments in favour of the Amendment are far wider than the narrow arguments put forward by the hon. Member for East Leicester, although I feel grateful to him for his support as far as allotments go. It is always easy to be more sympathetic towards the small man who cultivates an allotment than towards the
larger dairy or cow keeping farmer who farms a larger part of an area of land in the neighbourhood of towns, but if you compare the relative value to the community of both you have to consider that they are equally valuable, and that it is unwise to place any fresh burdens upon land used by either class. For that reason, I support the Amendment which I consider is vital to the equable and even development of land in the neighbourhood of towns.

Major LLEWELLIN: I was astonished at two statements made by the Solicitor-General. The first statement was that this tax cannot affect allotment land around villages. He said that that would normally be under the value of £120 a year.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I said that the difference between the land value and the cultivation and allotment value would not be as much as £120 a year.

Major LLEWELLIN: What I think the Solicitor-General has missed is this, that in a very large proportion of cases the allotments are owned privately. They are part and parcel of a very much larger land unit where, quite clearly, no such distinction will arise. They will be lumped together with the main land unit. Therefore, the Solicitor-General's argument does not apply to them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was referring more particularly to the case where the Allotment Holders' Association in a rural district took a field.

Major LLEWELLIN: May I make the case very much wider. If the Solicitor-General is confining his case to a particular Allotment Holders' Association, let me give an, instance, the facts of which I know perfectly well. Let me quote the case of a piece of land on a main road, a first class road. This land is adjacent to houses in a village and the allotments are used by the villagers. This particular field has been let hitherto for a considerable number of years at a nominal rent of £l a year to the local parish council, who have let it out to the allotment holders, who live in the village. One of three things will probably happen to that land if Land Tax is imposed upon it. It is quite clear that there is a considerable building value in that land, because it is within 2½ miles of a large town on the south coast. It
is pretty certain that there will be a tax falling upon the landlord for that particular field. He may say: "No longer will I bother to let this field for allotments," because the tax will come well above the more or less nominal rent that he is at present getting for it. The present income is not the income of any purchase price that he could expect. He may, therefore, decide to throw the land open for building operations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear," but what is to happen to the people who have cultivated allotments on that land?
The second thing that may happen to that land may be that the parish council will be given a year's notice to quit, or be told that they can pay the extra amount which the Government are going to take from that particular land in respect of Land Values Tax, over and above what they pay at present. In that case the extra cost will fall upon the allotment holders. There is a third alternative, but I am not certain whether the parish council have the power to do it, and that is that they may be given the opportunity of purchasing the land at the value which the Government valuer puts upon it. Even if they are going to get a proper return on the money that they have to pay, the allotment holders between them will have to find a considerably larger sum than the amount which they have to pay at present. Therefore, it is clear that that is going to be a direct burden on the allotments holders in that place.
The second statement of the Solicitor-General which astonished me was when he said that you may take any piece of land near a town and so long as it is scratched over with a rake it may be called an allotment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It will be so called.

Major LLEWELLIN: The Solicitor-General has not much confidence in his Commissioners.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It will be so-called by the owner.

Major LLEWELLIN: It does not matter in the least for the purposes of this Amendment what the owner calls it. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will read the Amendment. It is a question
of what will be considered by the Commissioners to be allotments, and if they are going to take it that any piece of land which is only scraped over with a rake once a year is an allotment it does not say very much for the Commissioners. The Solicitor-General, speaking the other day, used words to the effect that the added building value which would be attributed to land because it was in the neighbourhood of London would obviously extend as far as Uxbridge.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think I said "obviously." It may be "probably."

Major LLEWELLIN: At any rate, it was in his mind that it would extend as far as Uxbridge, which is the extreme western boundary of my constituency. It is clear that in the opinion of the Solicitor-General, the oracle of the Government on this Bill whom I can quote as the authority in my constituency, that every farmer in my constituency, and there are many, every market gardener, and there are many of them, and every allotment holder, every owner—[Interruption]—will have to pay something additional for the land which they now use for agricultural purposes. Whenever anyone mentions the word "owner" hon. Members opposite are inclined to sneer, but the owner is not precluded from giving these people a year's notice to quit and putting up the price of the land in order to get an economic return from it, which must include the tax which will have to be paid upon it. It is quite clear that the tendency of this tax in my constituency will be in every case to put an added burden on each one of these cultivators of the soil. There can be no dispute on that point. This is penalising all these men because they happen to cultivate farms, and have been doing so for years before London spread out so far, and those men who are cultivating market gardens, which are very extensive in that neighbourhood, not only against foreign competition, but against the produce of every agriculturist whose farm happens to be situate farther away from a large town. If any hon. Member opposite can dispute these facts I hope he will do so here and now. I certainly hold the view that this will be the case, and it is the view I am going to express in my constituency
as well as in this House. On behalf of my constituents I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some concession to these men who are carrying on one of the great primary industries of the country.

Mr. BUTLER: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. I was surprised to hear that the Solicitor-General himself was a thief and robber, that he had stolen land from the people. We have heard of a transaction with a local authority which must have made the Chancellor of the Exchequer blush. His colleague sitting beside him ought to have given the land to the local authority, for he himself stole it from the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be shocked that his principal protagonist in defending this Bill in this House is a thief and a robber, who has stolen land from the people.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a rather long and somewhat peculiar introduction to the hon. Member's speech. He must deal with the Amendment.

Mr. BUTLER: I will only say that it is refreshing to hear that the main defender of this Bill is in the same category as we are ourselves. Whenever agricultural interests are before the House I lose no opportunity of complaining at the treatment of the Government of the agricultural interest, and I maintain that this

Amendment gives them an opportunity of treating the industry as it should be treated. It gives them an opportunity of relieving the farmers of a great anxiety. There is a feeling of consternation in agricultural districts as to what may be the outcome of this tax. I have no time to go into the technical details because the Committee is desirous of coming to a decision, but from the psychological point of view the imposition of a new tax upon the land at this time is terrifying the agriculturists, and is a very wrong thing for any Government to do. Whenever the word "owner" is used it is scoffed at by hon. Members opposite, but it is now taking on a new significance in agricultural districts because so much of the land is already mortgaged, largely due to the incompetent handling of the agricultural situation by the Government. I do not regret having intervened on the patience of the Committee because I believe this is an occasion upon which the Government might have done some good for the agricultural community. If they have not sufficient sense to take advantage of the opportunity then let them go to their doom; as I am convinced they will do shortly.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 280.

Division No. 313.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Buchan, John
Culverwall, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Butler, R. A.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Campbell, E. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Carver, Major W. H.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm-, W.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Belniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Ferguson, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Christie, J. A.
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Ford, Sir P. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Colfox, Major William Philip
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Colman, N. C. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colville, Major D. J.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Boyce, Leslie
Courtauld, Major I. S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gower, Sir Robert


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cranborne, Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Llndsey, Galnsbro)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffleid, Hallam)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Meller, R. J.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Henderson, Capt. ft. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmrrland)


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thompson, Luke


Hunter-Weston, Lt., Gen. Sir Aylmer
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomson, Sir F.


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsbotham, H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Capt. D. E, (Hornsey)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Wells, Sydney R.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, Sir John James


Liewellin, Major J. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Lymington, Viscount
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Sir George Penny and Major the


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.
Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cove, William G.
Harbord, A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Daggar, George
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Alpass, J. H.
Dallas, George
Harris, Percy A.


Ammon, Charles George
Dalton, Hugh
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Angell, Sir Norman
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Haycock, A. W.


Arnott, John
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hayes, John Henry


Aske, Sir Robert
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Healy, Cahir


Attlee, Clement Richard
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Ayles, Walter
Devlin, Joseph
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dukes, C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Barr, James.
Duncan, Charles
Herriotts, J.


Batey, Joseph
Ede, James Chuter
Hicks, Ernest George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edge, Sir William
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hoffman, P. C.


Benson, G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hollins, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Egan, W. H.
Hopkin, Daniel


Blindell, James
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Freeman, Peter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bowen, J. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jenkins, Sir William


Broad, Francis Alfred
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brockway, A. Fenner
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Brooke, W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brothers, M.
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gossling, A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Gould, F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Gray, Mliner
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cameron, A. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Kinley, J.


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwocd, D.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Midlesbro' W.)
Knight, Holford


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lang, Gordon


Chater, Daniel
Groves, Thomas E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Church, Major A. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, G. H. (Marthyr Tydvil)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawrence, Susan




Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Leach, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lees, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Leonard, W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Sorensen, R.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lindley, Fred W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Palin, John Henry
Strauss, G. R.


Logan, David Gilbert
Palmer, E. T.
Sullivan, J.


Longbottom, A. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sutton, J. E.


Longden, F.
Perry, S. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lunn, William
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Thurtle, Ernest


MacDonald, Malcoim (Bassetlaw)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Tillett, Ben


McElwee, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Tinker, John Joseph


McEntee, V. L.
Potts, John S.
Toole, Joseph


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Price, M. P.
Tout, W. J.


McKinlay, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Townend, A. E.


MacLaren, Andrew
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Turner, Sir Ben


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Raynes, W. R.
Vaughan, David


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Richards, R.
Viant, S. P.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walkden, A. G.


McShane, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Walker, J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, H. W.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Manning, E. L.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mansfield, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


March, S.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Marcus, M.
Rowson, Guy
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Markham, S. F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Marley, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
West, F. R.


Marshall, Fred
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Westwood, Joseph


Mathers, George
Sanders, W. S.
White, H. G.


Matters, L. W.
Sandham, E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Maxton, James
Sawyer, G. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, Sir James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Milner, Major J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Montague, Frederick
Shield, George William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Morley, Ralph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simmons, C. J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinkinon, George
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mort, D. L.
Sitch, Charles H.



Muff, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir D. MACLEAN: It will be remembered that when the proceedings of the Committee started this afternoon a point of Order arose in connection with an Amendment which stands on the Amendment Paper in the name of an hon. and learned Friend of mine and myself. Owing to the Ruling of the Chair, it was impossible to proceed with that Amendment. I thought it would be as well to let the Committee know that that Amendment has now been put on the Paper in the form of a new Clause, and that it will come up for discussion, I suppose, on Tuesday next. I think it would tend to shorten the Debate when that Clause is reached—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to say
about the new Clause. In any case, the matter does not arise now.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With the indulgence of the Chair, I wanted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indicate what will be the attitude of the Government towards that new Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The subject on which the right hon. Gentleman is now asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement has been ruled out of order on Clause 20. Is it in order that a statement should be made on a matter which has been ruled out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Do I understand that I cannot give any reply to the question that has been put to me?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman can only make a statement by leave of the Committee.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed!

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to explain, under conditions which you have ruled out of order, the latest result of the latest deal between the Government and the Liberal party. I suggest that the proper course is to make that explanation, if it is thought desirable, on the Motion for the Adjournment.

The CHAIRMAN: On the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," we are bound to deal with the Clause as it is. I do not know what statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make, but it must be relevant to Clause 20.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the Committee obviously wants to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are two or three disgruntled Members opposite to be allowed to stop it?

Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

BRITISH SUGAR INDUSTRY [ASSISTANCE].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of advances to certain companies in respect of sugar manufactured by them at their existing factories in Great Britain during a period of one year commencing on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, from beet grown in Great Britain, at the rates and subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned, that is to say—

(i) in respect of any sugar manufactured while the market price of imported sugar, as determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, is less than seven shillings and ninepence, there shall be made an advance equivalent to one seventy-eighth part of the subsidy payable in respect of the sugar under the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act,
1708
1925, for every penny, or part of a penny by which the market price as so determined falls short of seven shillings and ninepenee, so, however that no advance shall exceed one shilling and threepence per hundredweight, that is to say, fifteen seventy-eighth parts of the subsidy;
(ii) the maximum quantity of sugar in respect of which advances may be made shall be three million six hundred thousand hundredweights;
(iii) no advance shall be made to a company unless the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is satisfied, as respects all sugar manufactured, or to be manufactured, by the company from home-grown beet during the said period, that the price paid, or agreed to be paid, to the grower represents a rate equivalent to, at least, thirty-eight shillings per ton for beet having a sugar content of fifteen and one-half per cent.;
(b) to provide for the recovery in certain events of the whole or some part of advances so made as aforesaid and for the remission of any balances which have not become so recoverable before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four; and
(c) to make such incidental and consequential provisions as are necessary or expedient in relation to the matters aforesaid."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Dr. Addison, Mr. W. Adamson and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

BRITISH SUGAR INDUSTRY (ASSISTANCE) BILL,

"to provide for the making of advances to certain companies in respect of sugar manufactured by them in Great Britain during a period of one year beginning on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, from beet grown in Great Britain; to provide for the recovery in certain events of the whole or some part of the advances so made, and for the remission of any balance thereof not so recovered; and for purposes incidental to, or consequential upon, the matters aforesaid."

presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

LAND VALUE TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND RELIEF).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury
whether he can arrange to give me an opportunity to discuss the Rent (Reduction and Control) Bill, of which I have been seeking to get a Second Reading for some time. In view of the importance of the Bill and the need for the reduction of the rents of so many of the poor people, I am drawing the attention of the House to the matter and asking for facilities for the passage of the Bill into law.

8.0 p.m.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I wish now to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a more proper form than on the previous occasion, whether he can inform the House of the attitude that the Government are prepared to take with regard to the Amendment which stood on the Order Paper to-day in relation to Clause 20, in the name of an hon. and learned Friend and myself. That Amendment was ruled out of order. It is now being put in as a new Clause, and can he inform the House what action the Government will take in regard to it?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me a rather unusual question. I cannot state what the attitude of the Government is likely to be in regard to the Amendment that appeared on the Paper to-day, because that Amendment is now dead, but I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said that a somewhat similar Amendment will be handed in to-night and will appear upon the Paper tomorrow. All that I can say at the moment is that, if the Amendment which was ruled out of order to-day had been debated in this House, the Government would have expressed its sympathy with it, but could not have accepted it in the form in which it appeared on the Paper, because I doubt if in that form it carried out even the wishes of those who handed it in, but, in regard to an Amendment embodying that principle, I may say that, if an opportunity arises for the discussion of the Amendment which is to appear on the Paper to-morrow, the Government will give it their sympathetic support, I will go further and say that if it is found, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, that it is not possible for that Amendment to be reached and discussed, the Government will provide an opportunity for an Amendment of an analogous character.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: In order that there should be no misunderstanding on this matter, the new Clause which is being put down will be to all intents and purposes identical with the Amendment which was on the Paper to-day, thought there may be some slight technical alteration. We gather from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that either that Amendment will be moved or the Government will move a similar Amendment, and that in either case the Bill will be amended in that sense before it reaches the Statute Book.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I only wish to offer one or two very brief comments upon the interesting scene which we have just witnessed. It has not been altogether a happy day for hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway. First of all, they could not succeed in putting their Amendment in a form which was in order; then they could not succeed in putting a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a time when it was in order; and now they have got a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I gather was still not entirely satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman who addressed us last. But a little earlier in the afternoon we were told by one of the hon. Members below the Gangway that the battle for Schedule A had been won, and we had been, therefore, anticipating with interest the complete surrender which was to be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his statement. I do not know what other hon. Members will think of the bargain which appears to have been come to, but I must say that I should like to offer the Chancellor of the Exchequer my congratulations, because it appears to me that he has got away with the principle and that if the party below the Gangway have recovered some of the money, that is only temporary, and there is no guarantee to them that even that part of the money will not go after the rest.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know about happy days, but the right hon. Gentleman is obviously whistling to keep up the courage of his followers. They had expected to celebrate a triumph to-night, and all that they will be able to celebrate is the triumph of commonsense between the two
parties that together have a majority and can defeat all their wiles. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for some of my hon. Friends on this side, we thank the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) for his attitude this evening and for giving an opportunity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear up the situation. I thank him—

Mr. CAMPBELL: On behalf of the Mayor and Corporation!

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I thank him for giving us an opportunity of hearing from the Chancellor just where we stand, and this every Member of the present House of Commons has a right to know. I will also say one other thing to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is that I am very glad that he realises, when he has got the better of an opponent that it is as well to be generous and fair.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that I was not here when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, but I understood that he made it with that graciousness for which he is so famous. But that does not concern us at all. I am only concerned with the substance, and when the substance comes to be discussed on Monday, or whenever it is that we come to the new Clauses, we shall be quite prepared to defend the position which we have taken. In substance we are satisfied. We agree that it is a compromise, and a compromise does always involve that both parties should give away a certain amount. The whole of British politics is based upon compromise. It is a reconciliation of two principles which appear on paper to be quite irreconcilable, but where sensible people, who are anxious to avert some disastrous consequences—[Interruption.] I have never made any concealment that that will be my object, and that as far as I was concerned I was prepared to go as far as possible in order to avert what I should regard as a disaster. Therefore, when the time comes, I shall be perfectly prepared—[An HON. MEMBER: "For an election!"]—When the time comes, I shall be prepared for that, but that is not the time when hon. Members above the Gangway demand it, but the time when I think it will suit the country.
I frankly say that I am delighted that an arrangement has been effected. I make no concealment, not the slightest, of the fact that I was anxious for an arrangement. I did not make any concealment last week of my desire from that point of view. I am perfectly prepared to defend it on the Floor of the House when we come to examine it, and I do not propose to do so now, because it would be out of order and we could not go into the full particulars, but I am quite prepared to meet hon. Members in any part of the House to defend that arrangement when it comes to be discussed here. There is one point that I want to make perfectly clear, because I was not here. I dare say the Chancellor made it clear, but we are working under a Guillotine arrangement, and it is conceivable that when private Members move an Amendment of this kind the Debate on it might not be able to be held, but I want to make it clear that the Government undertake the responsibility, which they alone can, that the Amendment, such as it is, and the arrangement which has been come to, will be honoured.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman would not have put that question if he had heard my statement, because my final words were that if, through the exigencies of Parliamentary business, it was found impossible that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman could be reached and discussed, the Government would provide an opportunity, either for that Amendment or for an analogous Amendment put in by the Government.

Sir W. BRASS: I want to ask the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) whether he is satisfied that the principle which he laid down in his speech at Edinburgh that there should not be two taxes will be satisfied by the Amendment which has been accepted by the Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, quite satisfied.

Mr. JAMES STUART: May I also ask the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr Lloyd George) whether he made it clear in his speech in Edinburgh that he wished to come to some such agreement with the Government, and that he would not give way?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to ask the Patronage Secretary if he will answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). Can he say whether he will take steps to have facilities given for the discussion of the Rent (Reduction and Control) Bill which is backed by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and other hon. Members, in view of the great need that something should be done for the working classes in connection with this question. I understand that some arrangement has been come to in regard to business and, without wishing to encroach on that arrangement, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the Government cannot provide an opportunity for the discussion of the whole question of rents in relation to the present conditions as regards decontrol, also the question of the rents of houses upon which the Government have paid subsidies, and
other questions relating to housing. All these matters are of much greater urgency now than they were some time ago. Wages are falling and the cost of housing is going up, and the working classes are in a very awkward plight as a result. Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to arrange facilities for the discussion of what I regard as one of the most important subjects to which (his House can turn its attention at the present time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I am extremely sorry that I cannot at the moment give any undertaking such as is asked for, but I can say this—that I shall use every possible endeavour in order to meet the requirements of my hon. Friend.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Eight o'Clock.